BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bodoland Territorial Council (for short hereafter referred to as the Council) by the instant application seeks a review of the order dated 20.09.2002, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2721/2001, directing the competent authority to appoint the opposite party/respondent No. 4 and/or pass necessary orders for the regularization of his services in the light of the order dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure B to the writ petition).

(2.) I have heard Mr. D Das, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council and Mr. A Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3. Also heard Mr. KP Sarma, Senior Advocate for the opposite party No. 4/writ petitioner.

(3.) ON an analytical consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, more particularly, those referred to hereinabove indicating the involvement of the authorities of the Bodoland Territorial Council in the process stemming from the orders passed by this Court, amongst others in WP(C) No. 2721/2001, I am constrained to sustain the plea of delay urged on behalf the opposite party No. 4. The order sought to be reviewed has been passed on 20.09.2002 and the instant application has been filed on 24.11.2010 i.e. after 8 years. Though, a desperate attempt has been made by Mr. Das to save the situation by contending that the authorities of the Bodoland Territorial Council have come to know of this order for the first time in the year 2010, the documents on record as annexed to the review petition attest to the contrary. The plea of non-impleadment of the Bodoland Autonomous District Council and the Bodoland Territorial Council in the above referred writ petitions in the face of these documents does not commend for acceptance. The materials on record unambiguously demonstrate that steps had been taken by the concerned authorities of the Bodoland Territorial Council towards implementation, amongst others of the order dated 20.09.2002 of this Court passed in WP(C) No.2721/2001. In that view of the matter, the plea of impermissibility in law of the regularization of the services of the opposite party No. 4 is untenable at this stage.