SRI UMESH CH. BHARATI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) ON 6.8.2013, in the course of hearing, this Court had granted two (2) weeks time to Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned State Counsel appearing for the State of Assam to file an affidavit-in- opposition on behalf of the State. It was also made clear therein that no further time would be granted thereafter. No representation from the State nor has the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondent till now. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is now taken up for hearing.

(3.) THE impugned order allowing him to officiate as Accountant-cum-Store Keeper against the post held by her is illegal inasmuch as an ad-hoc appointee or officiating appointee cannot be replaced by another officiating ad-hoc appointee. According to the petitioner, as the respondent No. 6 has come to replace her not on the basis of the promotion or on regular appointment but in her capacity as ad-hoc Accountant-cum-Store Keeper, her officiating appointment is impermissible. The settled position of law is that an ad-hoc/officiating appointee cannot be replaced by another ad- hoc/officiating appointee. He therefore, seeks the intervention of this Court. This Court by the order dated 12.4.2006, while issuing an interim order, has also observed that the petitioner had been continuing in the post of Accountant-cum-Store keeper from the year 1996 (1.4.1996) as per Annexure-2 order dated 21.11.1996 and that law is well settled that in the normal circumstances, one ad-hoc or officiating appointee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc or officiating appointee. The Court therefore, directed that the position of the petitioner as Accountant-cum-Store Keeper should not be disturbed and she should be allowed to continue in that post. It was also observed that it would be open for the State-respondents to accommodate the respondent No.6 in another post. That was in 2006. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the date of the interim order, the petitioner has been continuing in the post of Accountant-cum-Store Keeper in the office of the Block Development Officer, Dolonghat Development Block till date. As indicated earlier, the State respondents are yet to file their affidavit- in-opposition. Over seven (7) years have elapsed since then. Under the circumstance, I have no alternative but to presume that the respondent authorities have nothing to say against the case of the petitioner. Consequently, I hold that the impugned office order dated 17.2.2006 is illegal and cannot be acted upon.