DWRICK KAMDUK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, Sri Dwrick Kamduk, Sri Tapon Mibang and Sri Gammo Kamki have questioned the validity of the impugned order of reversion dated 5.9.1997 (issued on 28.9.1997) as in Annexure -III to the writ petition, by contending, inter alia, that they were appointed as Assistant Engineer (C) on ad hoc basis under the Respondent -Department by order dated 24.6.1997 as in Annexure -II to the writ petition. Three other persons appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (C) on officiating basis along with the petitioners have been allowed to continue in their respective -posts without any disturbance, but the petitioners have been reverted to the post of Junior Engineer (C) by the impugned order dated 5.9.1997 (28.9.1997). Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and not in accordance with law. This court while issuing rule passed an interim order staying the impugned order dated 5.9.1997 on 10.9.1997.

(2.) A simple question arises in this case as to whether the writ petitioners have any legal right to continue in the posts of Assistant Engineer (C). According to me they have no indefeasible right to continue in the post of Assistant Engineer (C) or to claim for regularisation of their services in the said posts for the following reasons : (i) Services of the writ petitioners as Junior Engineer (C) were regularised by order dated 9.10.1996 as in Annexure -I to the writ petitioner with effect from 16.9.1994, 24.11.1994 and 16.11.1994 respectively. In terms of the related Recruitment Rules, these petitioners require at least minimum 8 years of regular service and experience in case of Engineering Graduate and 10 years of regular service in case of Engineering Diploma Holder which the writ petitioners do not possess at the relevant time. Apart from that, their term of appointment on officiating basis as seen from Annexure -II speaks that their appointment on officiating basis may be terminated or reverted to their original posts at any time without assigning any reason thereof. For better appreciation, their original officiating appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) is quoted below :

(3.) BE that as it may, this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not supposed to compel the authority to do and repeat an illegal act which the authority might have done earlier. The authority should bear in mind that ad -hoc or officiating appointees who got appointment de -hors the Rules have no indefeasible right to hold such posts for long time. This court need no go more into depth as suffice is made with the above observation to dismiss the writ petition.