MADHAB ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks annulment of the orders dated 05.01.2008 and 12.02.2008 of the respondent No. 2 appointing the proforma respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to the post of Peon in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj. We have heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent No. 2 and Ms. SB Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for the proforma respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner sans unnecessary details is that after having been engaged as a part time menial on daily wage basis in the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj vide order dated 07.10.2004, he continued in various capacities thereafter on the same arrangement, however, with intermittent breaks. Though in the process he was once terminated w.e.f. 01.12.2007, he was engaged again as part time menial w.e.f. 08.01.2008. According to him, he is continuing as such with breaks as on date.

(3.) According to the petitioner, in view of blemishless services rendered over the years w.e.f. 07.10.2004, he was entitled to be considered for regular appointment to the post of Peon lying vacant at all relevant times and/or for regularization of his services in that capacity.