WP(C)/3279/2021 of RANJIT HAZARIKA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 21 June 2026

ORDER

22.06.2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the prayers made in the present writ petition are directed against the impugned decision of the Departmental Selection Board not to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation in service to the rank of Sub-Inspector (UB). The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has also submitted that the petitioner was aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for deputation to the pre-promotion cadre post training for promotion to the rank of Inspector (UB). The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone the promotional training for the post of

ASI (UB). However, confirmation of the petitioner in the rank of Sub-Inspector (UB) cannot be granted at this stage as sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner in connection with Dhula P.S. Case No. 18/2018. The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is also pending. Therefore, at this stage, the respondents are not in a position to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation in the rank of Sub-Inspector (UB). The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has also submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him had already been withdrawn by the petitioner on 16.10.2025. It appears that the prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding and in view of the fact that a sanction for prosecution has also been accorded against the petitioner. In the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to close the writ petition without adjudicating upon the reliefs sought therein. It is, however, observed that so long as the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner remain pending, the respondents would be justified in not considering the petitioner's case for confirmation. Accordingly, writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant