TUTUMANI DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior Standing Counsel, Government of Assam for the respondent nos.1 and 2; Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, APSC for the respondent nos. 3 and 4; Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. U. K. Nair, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 to 24.

(2.) In the Finance Department, Government of Assam, there is a Department called Assam Local Fund Audit Service. A departmental promotional examination was held for considering the eligible candidates for the posts of Audit Officer from amongst the feeding cadre of Assistant Audit Officers in the Directorate of Audit which is brought under the Finance Department, Assam.

(3.) The admitted position is that as per the Rules, 75% of the posts of the Audit Officer are to be filled from amongst Assistant Audit Officers who qualify in a departmental examination. The petitioners/writ appellants are the ones before this Court who had appeared in the departmental examination but had failed to qualify the said departmental examination as they did not get the required aggregate marks. The petitioners, however, were aggrieved as the Department had increased the number of vacancies from 32 to 51, which had been notified earlier. This, according to the petitioners, was a violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as far as the petitioners are concerned, as the Department cannot recruit candidates over and above the notified vacancies. The admitted position is that the notified vacancies were 32. There were 80 candidates who fell in the eligibility zone out of which 57 qualified the departmental examination. The case of the writ petitioners was that since the notified vacancies were only 32, promotions should have been made for only 32 posts and not for 51 posts as it was being done. Their argument prima-facie found favour of the learned Single Judge and an interim order was given by the learned Single Judge on 19.12.2019 in WP(C) 9305/2019 allowing the respondents to fill up only 32 (thirty two) posts of Audit Officers but, thereafter, the interim order was vacated by an order dated 01.02.2021 in I.A.(Civil) 243/2020. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed before this Court.