SAMPA PAUL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common question of facts and law being involved in both the writ petitions, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. DC Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Govt Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) In CR No.4850 of 1998, the four petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Employment Officer under Regulation 3 (f) of the AssamPublic Service Commission (L&F) Regulation, 1951 by a notification dated 24.2.95 claimed regularisation of their services. Their further prayer made in the writ petition is to set aside and quash that part of the Notification dated 5.7.97 by which the petitioner Nos 1 and 2 were intimated that their services would be terminated if they failed to qualify in the Combined Competitive Examination of 1996 held by the APSC. While issuing a Notice of Motion by order dated 22.9.98, this Court provided as an interim measure that the petitioners should not be ousted from their services. However, it was made clear that such continuance of the petitioners in their services shall not in any way stand on the way of absorbing the candidates who were regularly selected by the APSC. It was also provided that the petitioners would hold only the vacant post other than the notified post.