ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PHANIDHAR KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree, dated 06.03.98, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Title Appeal, Appeal No. 24/94, setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 9.5.94, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tezpur, in Title Suit No. 72 of 1989 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 72/89 aforementioned seeking, interalia, declaration that the office order No. EE/ DED/DKJ/E-10/89/427, dated 24.7.89, passed by the defendant No. 4, namely, Executive Engineer, Dhekiajuli, purporting to cancel the selection list of 1985 prepared in respect of the posts of Sahayak, Peon, Cook-helper in the Assam State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the ASEB') is null and void, non est in law and inoperative against the plaintiffs, the case of the plaintiffs being, briefly stated thus : The plaintiffs, who are educated unemployed youths underwent selection test held by the defendant No. 4 aforementioned, vide his letter, dated 29.7.85. The plaintiffs were selected and their names appeared in the select list, which was prepared in December, 1985. The plaintiffs No. 1,2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 secured 42nd 43rd, 44th, 45th and 46th position in the select list. The plaintiff No. 2 secured second position in the category of selected candidates meant for the post of Mali, the plaintiff No. 6 received second position in the category of selected candidates meant for the post of Cook-helper and plaintiff No. 7 secured 7th position in the category of the selected candidates meant for the posts of Peon, all the posts being of Grade-IV. After preparation of the list, the defendant No. 4 took long time in appointing the selected candidates and whenever the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were approached by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were given assurance that they would be appointed. Even the Minister of Power and the Chairman of the ASEB had assured the petitioners that they would do something in the matter, but at the same time, informed the plaintiffs that the Government had stopped further appointment for sometime. The defendant No. 4 appointed one Shri Sonaram Bodo on 8.8.88, but the plaintiffs, despite having been given repeated assurances for appointments, were ignored. As the plaintiffs did not receive any appointment, they instituted the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, their case being, in brief, thus: The defendants denied that they had ever given any assurance to the plaintiffs that they would be appointed. The defendant No 4, as appointing authority of Dhekiajuli division of the ASEB, appointed some of the selected candidates in order of preference from the select list as per availability of the vacancies and requirements of the division, but could not appoint all the selected candidates as there was neither vacancy nor requirement of so many persons in the said division. The selection had taken place only for Dhekiajuli division of the ASEB. As per practice and general norms, more candidates than existing vacancies were selected. The selection made, at a time, remains valid for one year only from the date of its approval by the Chairman of the Board. The select list was approved by the Chief Engineer of the ASEB by his letter, dated 19,12.95, and the Zonal Selection Committee approved the same on 21.5.87. The Zonal Selection Committee recommended for extension of the validity of the list by three months i.e. upto 7.10.87. In appointing Sonaram Boro, the ASEB did not commit any illegality inasmuch as he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and his appointment is in conformity with the Government policy. Such a select list remains valid for one year, but in the present case, select list had been kept extended for a period longer than one year. By letter, dated 3.7.89, the Personal Manager of the ASEB had informed the plaintiffs that the select list prepared in 1985 stood cancelled.