SHRI DHARAMRAJ Vs. SHRI AKSHAY PANT & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th March, 2016 in a writ proceeding being WP No.047 of 2016 wherein a writ in the nature of quo warranto was prayed for by the writ petitioner being a social worker challenging the legality of the appointment of the appellant in the post of Protocol Officer in the department of General Administration, Secretariat Establishment, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. By the impugned order the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. His Lordship found that the ad hoc appointment which was given to the appellant in the post of Protocol Officer by the Administration and the extension of such ad hoc appointment given to him from time to time by the Administration, were illegal and as such, the ad hoc appointment and the extensions which were given to the appellant by the Administration were set aside. Consequently, regularisation of the service of the appellant in the post of Protocol Officer which was impugned in the said writ petition, was set aside. The Administration was directed to fill up the vacant post by following rules framed in that regard within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

(2.) The legality and/or propriety of the said judgement and/or order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition is under challenge in this mandamus appeal.

(3.) At the outset Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition was raised before the learned Single Judge of this Court but the learned Single Judge of this Court, without deciding the said preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, decided the writ petition on merit. He further submitted that the appellant remained unrepresented before the learned Single Judge of this Court as due to the sad demise of the uncle of the appellant's learned advocate, he could not make himself present in Court to represent his client. We are also informed by him that though extension of time for filing affidavit in the writ proceeding and postponement of the hearing of the said writ petition were sought for but such prayers were not allowed and the writ petition was ultimately decided ex parte by rejecting the appellant's prayer for adjournment and without allowing the appellant to file affidavit in the writ proceeding. This part of the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the other parties. In this background Mr. Bhattacharya invited us to decide the maintainability point first.