TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondents. With the help of this writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate writ (s) commanding the respondents to either regularise the service of the petitioner, as Assistant Teacher, or permanently absorb him in a post of Assistant Teacher in Hakama MN ME School, Bilasipara.

(2.) THE writ petition unfolds with statement from the writ petitioner that he got an opportunity to serve as Assistant Teacher, when he was appointed on 16.11.1994, in Hakama MN ME School, Bilasipara, on ad hoc basis, for three months or until selected by Advisory Board, Bilasipara.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it is of immense importance to note, that the petitioner does not claim that he came to be appointed, on ad hoc basis, following any selection process. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner was wholly arbitrary and against the Constitutional scheme of public employment inasmuch as Articles 14 and 16 warrant the State to allow all eligible persons to participate in every selection process before any appointment is made. Be that as it may, the petitioner's letter of appointment, dated 16.11.1994, makes it clear that the petitioner's appointment was, on ad hoc basis, for three months, the appointment having been made by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri. The petitioner claims that his appointment was approved by the Advisory Board. A copy of the resolution of the Advisory Board is claimed to have been annexed to the writ petition. This resolution, being of great significance, is reproduced below: