BHUPEN KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner in C. Rule 5982/96. Also heard Mr. G. Uzir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and the learned Govt. Advocate.

(2.) As common question of facts and law are involved, the petitions were heard analogously and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The facts leading to the present writ petition in brief are that pursuant to a requisition sent by the State of Assam to the Assam Public Service Commission, for short APSC, for selection of persons to the posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer under the State of Assam, as advertised and published in the Assam Tribune dated 8.9.95, the three writ petitioners along with others participated in the said selection process. While the process was going on, the State of Assam informed the Commission that there are five additional vacancies in the cadre of Asstt. Soil Conservation Officer. Thereafter, the APSC vide Annexure-8 dated 8th May, 1996 recommended the name of 5 persons in order of preference and another list of 5 persons in the waiting list. Accepting the said recommendation, the Govt. of Assam was pleased to appoint all the five persons recommended by the APSC vide Annexure-9 dated 31st July, 1996. It may be mentioned here that the three writ petitioners before us were placed at SI. No. 3, 4 and 5. The writ petitioners accordingly joined their service. In the meantime, one Majharul Islam (who was later on impleaded as respondent No. 6 in Civil Rule No. 5982/96 vide order dated 5.3.97) instituted Civil Rule No. 3291/96 praying for a direction to the respondent State not to fill up all the post of Asstt. Soil Conservation Officer as per the recommendation of the APSC except the two posts which were advertised vide Advertisement No. 6/95. The said Majharul Islam was appointed under Regulation 3(f) and as such he prayed for a direction not to oust him from service. The petitioner in the said civil rule filed a Misc. Case No. 1271/96 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.9.96 and this Court gave the following direction: