AMIT NITIK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the Government has the choice to retain and/or re-appoint one out of its two temporary/ad-hoc employees, whether the Government can opt to retain and re-appoint the junior one in service between the two is the question, which this writ petition has raised for consideration by this Court.

(2.) With the help of the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/writs setting aside and quashing the continuation of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 as Village Level Workers (Junior), hereinafter referred to as "the VLW (Jr.)", under the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and commanding the respondents to reularise the services of the petitioners as VLWs(Jr.) on the basis of their satisfactory performance of duties and/or to allow the petitioner to continue to remain in service as VLW (Jr.).

(3.) In a nutshell, the case of the three petitioners, as finally emerges, upon hearing of this writ petition, may be narrated as follows : The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed on officiating basis as VLW (Jr.) by respondent No. 2, namely, the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, on 30.09.1997, for a period of 6 (six) months and their appointment were extended from time to time until 31.05.1999. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed, on 22.07.1996 as VLW (Jr.) for a period of one year on ad hoc basis by the respondent No. 2 and her services too was thereafter extended from time to time till 31.05.1999. the District Agriculture Officer of the district concerned certified, on 31.05.1999, that the performance of the petitioners was satisfactory. Same as the petitioners, 50 other persons including respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were appointed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners as VLW (Jr.) in the said Directorate on ad-hoc/officiating basis and their terms of service were extended from time to time till 31.05.1999. By an order, dated 16.04.1999, respondent No. 2 directed all the ad-hoc VLWs (Jr.) to appear in the written test and viva voce to he held on 29th and 30th May, 1999, for their regularisation. The petitioners and other VLWs (Jr.) including respondent Nos. 3 to 9 appeared in the said written test and viva voce, which were held for filling up of 43 post of VLW (Jr.). On the basis of the performance in the said selection test 24 of the said ad- hoc/officiating VLWs (Jr.) were selected and 29 of them failed to qualify. Those persons, who so failed, included not only the present three petitioners, but also respondent Nos. 3 to 9. However, subsequent to the said selection/appointment of the 24 persons aforementioned, 16 numbers of VLWs (Jr.) were appointed afresh, which included the private respondent Nos. 3 to 9. In short, thus, the present petitioners as well as the private respondent Nos. 3 to 9 had failed to qualify in the said written test and viva voce, but while the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were appointed afresh as VLW (Jr.) on ad- hoc basis, the present three petitioners, who had been appointed as VLW (Jr.) prior to the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9, were denied such appointment and not allowed to continue remain in their job.