LAWS(GAU)-2010-11-65

CHANDRA DHAR DEV SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Decided On November 15, 2010
Chandra Dhar Dev Sarma Appellant
V/S
State Of Assam Rep By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt Of Assam, Education Department Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Ms. M. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The Petitioner was, vide order, dated 8.6.1995, passed by Respondent No. 2, namely, Director of Secondary Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati, appointed, temporarily, under Regulation 3(F) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951, as a Subject Teacher, in Mathematics, for a period of four moths or until the time the post is filled up by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short, 'APSC') by 'selection in order of merit'. The service of the Petitioner was, thereafter, extended from time to time. While the Petitioner was so working, an advertisement was published by the APSC inviting applications for filling up of posts of Subject Teacher in Government Higher Secondary Schools. Though the Petitioner had applied for selection and also appeared in the interview held on 3.6.1996, he was not selected and his name was not recommended by the APSC for regularization of his service as against the post of the Subject Teacher.

(3.) The Petitioner, then, impugned his omission from the selection made by the APSC by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 4442 of 1996. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition, on 12.9.1996, directing the Respondents not to oust the Petitioner from service. By order, dated 18.9.2001, the said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the Respondent No. 2, namely, Director of Secondary Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati, to consider the case of the Petitioner's regularization if permissible in law. While so disposing of the writ petition, the Court made its interim order, dated 12.9.1996, absolute. The Petitioner has, thus, continued in the said post till date.