ANJAN DAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. CKS Baruah, learned Advocate General of Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. BL Singh, learned Senior Govt Advocate for the State-respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as skilled contingency staff in the year 1990 in the District Horticulture Office (DHO) and continued at Bomdila till November, 1999. On 16.11.1999, he was appointed as Grafter on officiating basis for a period of three months and his services as officiating Grafter were extended from time to time and the last extension was made by order, dated 18.1.1999 by which the services of the petitioner was extended up to 31.3.2001. After expiry of the said period, the service of the petitioner was discontinued with effect from 1.4.2001. According to the petitioner, he has rendered service as skilled contingency from 1990 to 1999 and thereafter he was appointed as officiating Grafter by the order dated 16.11.1999 (Annexure H) and continued for the post as officiating Grafter till 31.3.2001, therefore, the petitioner claims that his service is required to be regularised.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the claims of the petitioner in the their affidavit-in-opposition and in para 4 of the affidavit stated that on request of the Hon'ble Minister (Horticulture), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner was appointed as officiating Grafter for 3 (three) months against the post Sri DK Sinjuli, Grafter who was reported to be missing on 26.6.1999. It is the claim of the respondents that after the petitioner was appointed on officiating Grafter, a DPC was held on 27.12.2000 for regularization of all officiating appointees/promotees of Group C and D staffin the Department of Horticulture. In the said DPC, the case of the petitioner was also placed regularization of his service, but the committee has rejected his case on the ground that the post is purely reserved for APST category on the basis of 100 point roster for APST candidates. According to the respondents, the petitioner could not be regularised against the said post which is meant for APST candidates.