SMT. GOPA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the State-respondents to give regular appointment to her with consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly noticed at the outset. The petitioner is the daughter of the late Gongesh Bhattacharjee, a police constable working in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Cachar District, Silchar (respondent 6), who died in harness on 25-1-1981 due to cancer. He left behind him his wife and his minor children including the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as Women Home Guard in the Office of the respondent No. 6 a fixed wages of Rs.1,300.00 per month on compassionate ground. On 20-12-1993, she filed representation to the Director General of Police, Assam (respondent 3) for considering her appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant-cum-Typist in the Office of respondent 6. The representation was forwarded to the respondent 3 for consideration. Between 26-9-1997 and 30-12-2000, she was called for interview for several times, but she was never appointed, which compelled her to approach this Court in WP(C) No. 6490 of 2001. This Court by the order dated 14-9-2001 had directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.

(3.) When the direction of this Court did not meet the desired result, she was constrained to approach the Committee on Petition, Assam Legislative Assembly for her appointment. The Committee on Petition vide it 38th report forwarded by the letter dated 11-4-2005 issued by the Additional Secretary, Assam Legislative Assembly directed the respondent authorities to consider her for appointment to the post of LDA-cum-Assistant under respondent 6 as her position was found to be in Serial No. 1 of the Select List in the test held on 30-12-2000. Even after the intervention of the Committee on Petition also, there was no improvement in her case. This prompted her to petition the Deputy Inspector General of Police to that end, but with no effect. This is how this second round of litigation is preferred by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent authorities has been denying regular appointment to the petitioner till now arbitrarily and illegally.