LAWS(GAU)-2003-11-27

BIGUM NGUIOM Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Decided On November 27, 2003
BIGUM NGUIOM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are office bearers of Arunachal School Education Officers' Association, have approached this Court seeking, inter alia, issuance of appropriate writ/writs commanding the State respondents to repatriate respondent No.6 to his parent Directorate of Higher Technical Education and to exclude the name of the respondent No.6 from the interse seniority list of the officers of the Directorate of School Education.

(2.) The case of the petitioners may, in brief, be stated as follows:-

(3.) The respondents have contested the case, the case of the respondents being to the effect, inter alia, that the respondent No.6 stood absorbed in the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate of Education vide notification, dated 25.5.1995, issued by the Secretary, Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, with effect from 18.12.1994. Since the absorption took place before the bifurcation of the Department of Education into the Directorate of Higher and Technical Education and the Directorate of School Education, the respondent No.6 already stood absorbed in the Directorate of School Education. The petitioners or their Association never raised any objection at the time, when the respondent No.6 was so absorbed and they raised their obj ection only, in the year 2001, by their representation, dated 09.07.2001. The absorption of the respondent no.6 was as a result of the power of relaxation exercised by the Governor under the relevant Recruitment Rules and since the petitioners did not raise any obj ection thereto for such a long time, they cannot, now, upset the settled issue of the absorption of respondent No.6 in the Directorate of School Education. The absorption of the respondent No.6 in the Directorate of School Education has not in any way affected the service career of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the said absorption of the respondent No.6 at such belated stage.