MARPAK KADU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, who are 9 (nine) in number, have approached this Court challenging a series of identical orders bearing No. Estt(A)/20/96 dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) issued by the Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh cancelling the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the Civil Secretariat of the State. The writ petitioners have also challenged the legality and validity of the order bearing No. Estt-(A)3/96 dated 26.5.1998 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) whereby the respondents No. 3 to 13, who were at the relevant time working as Upper Division Clerk on adhoc basis, were appointed as Upper Division Clerk on a regular basis. The brief facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy in the present case are set out hereunder.

(2.) The writ petitioners who were working as Lower Division Clerk in the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat at Itanagar, being eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Upper Division Cleric in accordance with the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") were considered for promotion and were accordingly, selected for promotion as evident from the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 6.1.1998 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Nineteen persons including the nine writ petitioners whose names appeared in the aforesaid select list were appointed as Upper Division Clerk by order dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and on the basis of the said appointment order, the writ petitioners joined on the same day. However, on the same day, by a series of identical orders issued under the signature of the respondent No. 2, the aforesaid appointments of the writ petitioners stood cancelled. Subsequently, by a separate order dated 27th March, 1998 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), the writ petitioners were allowed to officiate as Upper Division Clerks. However, by another separate order dated 26th March, 1998, the respondents No. 3 to 13 who were at the relevant time working as adhoc Upper Division Clerks were regularly promoted as Upper Division Clerks in the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat. Hence, the writ petition claiming the reliefs already stated.

(3.) Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a two-fold submission in support of the prayers made in the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that the petitioners having been duly selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee and on the basis of the said selection, having been appointed and pursuant thereto the writ petitioners having joined in the higher post, the impugned cancellation could not have been made without hearing the writ petitioners. Next, Mr. Michi contends that the respondents No. 3 to 13, who were working as adhoc Upper Division Clerks, as it appears from the tenor and contents of the appointment order dated 26th May, 1998 have been regularly appointed as Upper Division Clerks by the said order dated 26.3.98. The learned counsel contends that the rationale behind the aforesaid Government action in cancelling the regular appointments of the writ petitioners on one hand, and appointing the respondents No. 3 to 13 on regular basis on the other hand, defies all logic and reasonable explanation. That apartt, the learned counsel contends that the aforesaid appointments of the respondents No. 3 to 13 not having been made by following the procedure prescribed by the rules, the said appointments are ex facie illegal and are liable to tee interfered with by this Court in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.