KAMINI MOHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Misc. Case No. 2923 of 2013 is directed against the order dated 27.8.2013 passed by this Court dismissing the connected WP(C) No. 6575 of 2007 in default of prosecution. At the outset, Mr. B.D. Goswamy, the learned Standing counsel for the Education Department, points out that the writ petition itself suffers from laches, apart from its lack of merit, and restoring the writ petition under the peculiar facts of this case will only result in vexation and, therefore, should not be resurrected by allowing the application. Be that as it may, let me confess that the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the Misc. Case show that his counsel, was attending another Court when the case was called on for hearing and did have a good cause for his non-appearance on that occasion. Consequently, the application for restoration of WP(C) No. 6575 of 2007 is allowed. Nevertheless, I proceeded to hear Mr. P.J. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.D. Goswamy, the learned Standing counsel for the Education, on merit on that day. Before I proceed further, I may advert to the basic facts of the case as projected by the petitioners. Pursuant to the advertisement published in 1996, the petitioner numbering 28 in all applied for the posts of L.P. School teachers. After completing the selection process, the Selection Board (the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board for Elementary Education, Rangia) prepared the merit list on 28.2.2001 wherein the names of the petitioners found a place. To the surprise of the petitioners, they were never given the appointments even though they also learnt that a number of Assistant of Teachers including one Shri Gautam Kalita have been given the appointments in a hush-hush manner by ignoring all the accepted norms. (Though the select list was prepared as early as 2001, according to the petitioners, it was still valid when this writ petition was filed in 2007.) It is the case of the petitioners that some of the appointed teachers were outside the select list and the very contents of the appointment orders revealed the unholy haste and eagerness on the part of the authorities to appoint those teachers the appointments were also in violation of the direction of the Level Empowered Committee constituted vide O.M. dated 6.1.99.

(2.) It is also the case of the petitioners that some other persons were also given appointments till date in the vacancies available which are meant for the candidates to the advertisement of 1996. It is contended that the appointment orders are discriminatory in nature and that the petitioners should have been given preference as they were duly selected. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have recently come to know from a reliable source that in Kamrup District, there are a number of vacant posts available for the candidates to the advertisement of 1996 and that the respondent authorities are going to fill up those vacant posts without following any rules, norms and guidelines in this behalf; The respondent authorities by issuing the aforesaid appointment letters have extended the validity of the said select list till date, and they could not issue any appointment letter to any other person without first considering the cases of the petitioners. There are a number of vacancies in the L.P. Schools under Deputy Inspector of Schools, Rangia in the District of Kamrup, for which the petitioners are entitled to appointments. These are the contentions of the petitioners.

(3.) No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents, but as already noticed, Mr. B.D. Goswamy, the leaned standing counsel for the respondents made elaborate submissions on the issue of laches. According to Mr. P.J. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioners; there is no inordinate delay in filing the writ petition inasmuch as the vacancies are still available and the select list, which is still now operated upon by the respondent authorities to pick and choose persons of their choice for giving appointment, cannot be said to have expired: to do so would result in grave miscarriage of justice. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court not to non-suit the petitioners on the ground of laches and dispose of the case on merit.