(1.) HEARD Mr. H. Rahman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mushahary, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents.
(2.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as an Anganbadi worker in the Child Development Project at Boko by order dated 19.7.1979. The petitioner appeared in a selection for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Anganbadi Supervisor and claims to have been placed at serial No. 5 of the merit list prepared. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid merit list was prepared in the year 2001 and all the other 34 candidates whose names were included in the said merit list including those placed below the petitioner in order of merit were appointed but somehow the petitioner was left out. In these circumstances the petitioner has instituted the present writ application wherein an order was passed by this Court on 5.12.2001 requiring the Director of Social Welfare, Government of Assam to place before the Court the reasons for not appointing the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an order dated 15.6.2004 purportedly acting pursuant to the order of this Court 5.12.2001, the petitioner was appointed as an Anganbadi Supervisor in the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Tepattari I.C.D.S. Project in Bongaigaon district. The aforesaid appointment has been sought to be cancelled by another order dated 24.1.2005 passed in pursuance of an order dated 11.1.2005 passed by this Court in a writ proceeding registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 4932 of 2004. The aforesaid two orders, i.e., the order dated 15.6.2004 appointing the petitioner and the order dated 24.1.2005 terminating the petitioner's service, have been placed before the Court by filling a Misc. Case, i.e., Misc. Case No. 873 of 2005.
(3.) THE appointment of the petitioner made by order dated 15.6.2004 was one of the 87 appointments, by way of promotion which were challenged before this Court in the proceeding registered and numbered as W.P.(C) No. 4932 of 2004. This Court by its order dated 11.1.2005 took note of the fact that the aforesaid appointments, by way of promotion, were not in accordance with the prevailing norms and none of the said appointments were made by following any acceptable practice. Accordingly, this Court had directed the process of appointments by way of promotion to the aforesaid 87 posts to be redone by considered the cases of all eligible persons.