LINYA NYODU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Also heard Ms. T. Wangmo, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the respondent No. 4 on call.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as well as seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Draughtsman- II from the date of appointment of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 against the advertised sanctioned post dtd. 4/9/2002 as well as for granting the petitioner service benefits to which he is to be entitled.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the Director of UD and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued an advertisement dtd. 4/9/2002 for filling up of various posts in the Urban Development Department, Arunachal Pradesh. This advertisement included the posts of Draughtsman Grade-II Group-C to which the instant petition relates to. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible applied for the post of Draughtsman-II. As no results were forthcoming to the said advertisement and the selection process, the petitioner submitted an application for engagement as Draughtsman Grade-III and at Basar DUDA Office vide a communication dtd. 21/5/2005. On the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was engaged as a Draughtsman Grade-III at Basar DUDA Office on contingency basis. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed the applications to be regularized in the said services vide a representation dtd. 30/10/2005. The petitioner continued to submit applications after applications for regularization but nothing was done on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner was given an impression that the said selection process initiated on the basis of the advertisement dtd. 4/9/2002 was abandoned.