WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
WA 43(SH)/2010 - Gauhati High Court
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6<br />
Annexure-H to the writ petition, the learned Advocate,<br />
Mr.Bhattacharjee has argued that the appellant was upgraded<br />
to medical category <strong>SH</strong>APE-1 w.e.f.4 th December, 2001 and<br />
therefore the decision of the respondents in placing the<br />
appellant in compulsory retirement on that ground was<br />
uncalled for. The learned CGC has submitted that the<br />
appellant petitioner was categorised as low medical category<br />
from the year,1994 and therefore, the decision taken by the<br />
appropriate authority was justified. The documents so<br />
annexed shows that the appellant petitioner was categorised<br />
thus:-<br />
“P3(T-24) with effect from 26.09.1994<br />
P2(T-24) with effect from 15.04.1995<br />
P2(T-24) with effect from 16.10.1995<br />
P2(Permanent ) with effect from 16.04.1996<br />
P2(T-24) with effect from 16.04.1998”<br />
In view of above categorisation, learned CGC has<br />
submitted that the appellant petitioner was never wrongly<br />
categorised with malafide intention and that the other<br />
materials which is considered by appropriate authority as<br />
detailed in para-19 of the affidavit-in-opposition were also<br />
rightly considered for which interference in the decision of the<br />
appropriate authority is not called for by this <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Learned Single Judge while considering the rival<br />
contention on the issue, in para-7,8 and 9 of judgment and<br />
order dated 29.7.<strong>2010</strong> held as thus:-<br />
“ 7. Having regard to the rival contention of the<br />
learned counsels and also upon consideration of the<br />
pleadings as well as the original ACR records<br />
produced before the <strong>Court</strong>, it appears that adverse<br />
remarks on the integrity of the petitioner have been<br />
recorded by his superiors and such remarks have