BIREN SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1983 an interview was conducted by the State Selection Committee for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Schools. The Selection Committee recommended names of the candidates selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Schools in order of merit. Pursuant to the said recommendation of the State Selection Committee the petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Schools in the year 1984. The appointment letters were issued by the authority to different candidates on different dates and according to the appointment letters issued the persons so selected have joined duties. On 25.04.89 a provisional draft seniority list of Sub- Inspector of Schools was issued and circulated and later on a final gradation list was published on 01.09.89. Thereafter on 10.12.96 a provisional seniority list was issued and circulated and on 16.12.97 the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Schools was published. Sri Biddyutjyoti Purkayastha, the respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, has challenged the gradation list dated 01.09.89, provisional seniority list dated 10.12.96 and the final seniority list dated 16.12.97 in Civil Rule No. 4672/98 on the allegation that the draft seniority list dated 25.04.89 was prepared on the basis of merit, but the Government while preparing the final seniority lists dated 01.09.89, 10.12.96 and 16.12.97 have given a complete go bye to the merit list of the selected candidates and the seniority list was prepared on the basis of date of joining of the candidates.

(2.) Learned Single Judge of this Court has accepted the contentions raised by the petitioner and by judgment and order dated 09.05.2000 has issued the following directions:-

(3.) As per directions issued by the Court, the Government has undertaken an exercise of preparation of the final seniority list and the final seniority list was prepared and published on 07.02. 2001 which was the subject matter of the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 943/2001) in the present proceedings. It is the case of the petitioners in the present proceedings that the seniority list published on 07.02.2001 has been prepared on the basis of the draft seniority list dated 25.04.89 and the Government has not taken into consideration the directions issued by this Court in Civil Rule No. 4672/98. It appears that the during the period when the matter was pending consideration for preparation of seniority list, the record of the selection of the year 1983 was lost and, therefore, the Government has relied upon the draft seniority list prepared on 25.04.89 for preparation of the final seniority list dated 07.02.2001. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the seniority list dated 07.02.2001 has not been prepared on the basis of merit as directed by the Court as is clear from the correspondence between the government officials that the merit selection list and other records has been lost, and, therefore, the foundation made for preparation of the final seniority list on the basis of draft seniority list dated 25.04.89 is not in accordance with law nor in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that on comparison of the draft seniority list dated 25.04.89 and the final seniority list dated 01.09.89, 10.12.96 and 16.12.97 it appears that the draft seniority list was prepared on the basis of merit and that being the case, if the Government has relied upon the draft seniority list in the eventuality of the record being lost, the final seniority list dated 07.02.2001 substantially complied with the directions issued by this Court.