HITESH DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions pertain to selection and appointment to the post of Grade-IV in the Assam Secretariat, Guwahati. The petitioners involved in this batch of writ petitions were aspirants for selection and appointment, but when they found that their names were not included in the list of candidates sent for the second phase of selection they approached this Court by filing the writ petitions and because of the interim order passed, the 2nd stage of selection although was held, but the results thereof could not be published and consequently no appointment could be made. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. I have heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, Mr. R. De, Mr. P.K. Deka, Mr. M. Phukan, Mr. M. Talukdar and Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel and Mr. P. Naik, learned Standing Counsel, Finance appearing in WP(C) No. 1557/2013. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the decision, on which Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. Such decisions are as A.K. Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1991 1 SCC 544 Chander Bhan Vs. Hotilal Gupta & Ors., 1991 Supp2 SCC 156 and H.C. Puttaswamy & Ors. Vs. The Hon ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore & Ors., 1991 Supp2 SCC 421 Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel representing the petitioners involved in WP(C) No. 1557/2013 has made the additional submission that the petitioners having had the past experience of working, the same ought to have been considered by the interview board. He has further submitted that relaxation should have been provided to the petitioners in respect of their over age in terms of the Rules.

(2.) Referring to the rules of recruitment namely the Assam Secretariat Grade-IV and Record Suppliers Service Rules, 1963, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the appointing authority being the Deputy Secretary of the department, the advertisement could not have been issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of the department. Be it stated here that the department is Secretarial Administration Department (in short SAD). It is the further submission that Rule-6 of the said rules having prescribed for interview by the appointing authority, the first phase of the interview could not have been held by the officials deputed by the departmental authority. Another submission made is that in the particular case involved in WP(C) No. 5788/2012, the Personal Assistant to the Parliamentary Secretary, Government of Assam having been deputed to take the interview providing him with security coverage, the selection conducted in that manner was bad in law.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that having regard to the large number of candidates (80,830), the first phase of the interview was conducted through the Senior Administrative Assistants (SAA) and Junior Administrative Assistants (JAA) and the selection boards for the respective districts were constituted in that manner. It has further been stated that the 2nd phase of the interview was held in the Assam Secretariat and the selection board comprised of the officials of the rank of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary.