PRADIP DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the notification dated 3 12 2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 declaring that all the Select Lists in respect of the posts of Assistant Teacher Language Teacher under the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, published prior to 1 4 2001 stood expired with immediately and that all matters pending at any forum on the basis of such lists should accordingly become infructuous with effect from the date of publication of this notification.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. It started with the advertisement for the 200 posts of Assistant Teacher and 100 posts of Language Teacher, among other categories, published in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 3 9 1991. Pursuant to the advertisement, several candidates including the petitioners herein applied for the posts. So far as the District of Nalbari is concerned, the then District Level Selection Committee prepared and published on 4 1 1995 separate lists of candidates for each of its constituency, namely, Barkhetri, Dharmapur, Nalbari, Patacharkuchi and Barama Constituencies. This resulted in the appointment of 79 persons for the various vacancies in the posts of Secondary School Teacher. The grievance of the petitioners is that though their names found a place in the Select List published on 4 1 1995, but persons below them in the Select Lists and persons outside the said Select Lists had been appointed whereas they have not been appointed till now. This prompted the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4, on the one hand, and the petitioner No. 5 and 6, on the other, to file Civil Rule No. 3056 of 1997 and Civil Rule No. 2835 of 1996 respectively before this Court, which by the elaborate common judgment dated 2 8 1997 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

(3.) IT is most unfortunate that the State respondents have not bothered to file their affidavit in opposition till now though they made their appearance through their standing Counsel as early as the last part of 2006. The writ petition was filed in the year 2004. Mr. SM Chisti, the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, however, makes submissions on behalf of the State respondents. The respondent No. 19 and 23 contested the writ petition and filed their respective affidavits in opposition. According to the respondent No. 19, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Tihu High School by the respondent No. 3 on 30 1 1996. His service was shifted from Plan Head to Non Plan Head against the vacant post following the up gradation of one Sailendra Pathak of Tihu High School vide the order dated 15 9 2000 issued by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the services of the respondent No. 19 were regularized by the respondent No. 3 on 9 11 2000. It is contended by the respondent No. 19 that the writ petition is barred by the principles of laches inasmuch as the petitioner approached this Court only in 2004 whereas the cause of action arose as early as 30 1 1996 when he had been appointed as Assistant Teacher. It is, therefore, contended by him that the writ petition is liable to dismissed on the ground of non maintainability. In the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 23 also, similar contention was raised by him, namely, the writ petition is barred by the principle of laches as the petitioner challenged his appointment of 1999 only in 2004 i.e. after the lapse of more than four years.