RAJIV KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is presently working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh, has approached this court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/s to get, inter alia, quashed the impugned order No. SECC/E-III- COORD/8/2002 /103 20-21, dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure - P/10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the respondent No. 3 has conveyed to the petitioner that the latter's appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil) is temporary and against the post meant for reserved quota and his services may be terminated immediately after reserved candidate is selected for the post.

(2.) In a nut-shell, the case of the petitioner runs as follows: The petitioner, a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, while working as a Work Charged Surveyor in the Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, applied, through proper channel, to the respondent No. 3 for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and in pursuance of the Calling letter/Admit card, dated 28.11.97 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition), issued in this regard, the petitioner appeared, on 19.12.97, for written examination, his roll number being 80. As per as the result of the written examination published on 02.03.98 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition), the petitioner succeeded in the written examination and the respondent No. 3 accordingly issued another calling letter/interview letter, dated 02.03.98 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition) for the purpose of viva-voce interview to be held on 21.03.98. The petitioner appeared in the said viva-voce interview and as the petitioner qualified in the said interview/viva-voce too, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter contained in No. SE/COORD/E-III/8/98/152-55, dated 03.04.98 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) appointing the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), hereinafter referred to as "JE(C)", against the post, which had fallen vacant on account of its incumbent namely, Shri A.K. Yadav. having absconded. On receiving the said appointment letter, the petitioner started working as JE(C) in the said department. However, the petitioner, all of a sudden, received a copy of the Order No. SECC/E-III/COORD/ 8/2002/10320-21,dated 01.02.2002 (Annex- ure-P/10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3 informing the petitioner that he had been appointed as JE(C) temporarily against the post meant for "deputation/absconding/reserved vacancy" and that the petitioner's services may be terminated immediately after reserved candidate is selected for the post of JE(C). This information conveyed to the petitioner is, according to the petitioner, wholly against the appointment letter issued to him and by making such false statement that the said post was meant for a candidate of reserved quota, the respondents were trying to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right to continue to remain in service. The advertisement, dated 04.09.97. aforementioned was actually meant for 15 (fifteen) numbers of JE(C) and out of these 15 posts, 2(two) posts were kept reserved for Non-APST (General) Candidates. Thus, when vacancies against the general quota existed at the relevant time, the question of giving appointment to the petitioner against the reserved posts did not arise at all.

(3.) Though the respondents have contested this case, they have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition and hence, the statements of facts, averred in the writ petition, shall be treated as admitted facts and this writ petition deserves to be disposed of accordingly. Reference may be made, in this regard, to Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2592.