ANANDA RAM BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein who are petitioners in the writ petition, had filed the writ petition challenging the final seniority list in respect of Lower Division Assistant of the Assam Secretariat, Dispur published on 18.12.1990, the appellate order and the orders of the Assam Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The writ petition was filed on the allegation that the appellants have undergone one year apprenticeship training from 15.5.1976 to 15.5.1977 in the Assam Secretariat under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. After completion of the training the appellants continued in service in the Assam Secretariat and discharging their duties. By order dated 27.12.1977 the State Government appointed the appellants and some other persons under Rule 8 (1) of the Assam Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 read with Rule 29 of the said Rules. The appellants were appointed temporarily and the appointment order contained that their inter se seniority will be determined later on. The appellants were encadered by office order dated 28.1.1986 and thereafter a provisional seniority list was prepared wherein appellants' names appear at Serial Nos. 519, 521, 523, 524 and 531. The appellants made representations against the provisional seniority list. The Government after considering their representation by order dated 14/16.6.1990 altered the position of the appellants in seniority list placing them a Serial No. 95, 97, 99, 101 and 104 respectively. Again a representation was made by some persons, whose name appeared in the provisional seniority list to the Government and thereafter a final seniority list was again published putting the appellants at Serial Nos. 213, 215, 217, 219 and 222. The change in the seniority list being made without giving opportunity to the appellants, they approached the Government by way of representation. Their representations having been rejected by the State Government, they approached the Assam Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati by filing 5 appeals. Their appeals were rejected by the Assam Administrative Tribunal by order dated 22.4.1992. Aggrieved by the order of the Assam Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition i.e. Civil Rule No. 994/94 was filed. The learned Single Judge has directed that since the appellants' appointments were made relaxing the recruitment Rules under provisions of Rule 8 (1) of the Rules their seniority should be counted from the date of appointment and the seniority list should be prepared taking into consideration the date on which the appellants were appointed. It is further directed that those direct recruits, who have been appointed after the appellant's appointment but already been promoted, should not be affected by this order.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 3 to 8 have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 994/92 by filing a review petition. The learned Single Judge by its order dated 23.5.2002 has set aside the order passed in Civil Rule No. 994/92 on the ground that Rule 29 of the Rules could not authorise the State Government to relax condition of recruitment spelt out by Rule 8, such exercise of powers and provision of relaxation is strictly prohibited by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta VS State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2000) 7 SCC 561 As the learned Judge has taken a view that the conditions of service and recruitment can also be relaxed in exercise of power conferred under Rule 29, the judgment pronounced by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 994/92 is vitiated by the error apparent on the face of the record. With this findings, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The result following the review petition was that the original seniority list prepared by the Government was restored back. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this appeal.