DEEPAK DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, the common question of law arose in all the writ petitions that have been decided by one common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, all these writ appeals against that order are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts in brief, material for the purpose of deciding the question involved are that the appellants belong to the group of 41 persons, who were appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951 (for short the Regulation 1951) on the post of Lecturers in different subjects in Diphu and Haflong Colleges. The order of appointment dated 23.03.2001 contained a stipulation that in the event they do not qualify in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) selection, they will not claim regularization of their services. After the appellants were appointed, the Government took up regular process or selection for appointment of Lecturers and published an advertisement in the news paper on 17.05.2001 inviting applications for filling up 114 posts of Lecturers in different subjects in the Government Colleges of the State of Assam. The appellants took advantage and applied for the posts, The appellants' name appeared in the select list which was published on 17.05.2002. As the appellants were not regularized even after their names appeared in the select list, several writ petitions were filed by different persons belonging to the group of 41,3(f) appointees, claiming regularization of their services on the ground that they being selected by the APSC, they fulfilled the conditions attached to their initial appointment order dated 23.03.2001 and, thus, they have a right to be regularized and the Government be directed to issue orders of regularization. The State Government has filed a common affidavit in the aforesaid cases wherein it has been stated that in terms of the orders of appointment of the petitioners, they have been found to be qualified and as such the petitioners may now be regularized.

(3.) While the matter was pending consideration, the Government issued an order dated 26.05.03. It is this order which is the subject matter of controversy between the parties in the present proceeding and thus, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same. The order dated 26.05.03 reads :