MADHABANANDA ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ application is against the order dated 9.7.2001 passed by the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which benefit of notional seniority was directed to be conferred on the private respondents No. 3 to 66 herein over the two writ petitioners in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Statistics. The provisional seniority list prepared by the department on 2.8.2001 pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal; rejection of the objections of the petitioners to the aforesaid fixation of seniority as well as the final seniority list dated 3.12.2001 showing the private respondents No. 3 to 6 to be senior to the two writ petitioners have also been impugned in the present writ application.

(2.) The facts are long and the pleadings have been elaborate and an attempt is being made to put on record what would be essential for a determination of the controversy that has arisen in the present case. In the year 1983, an advertisement was issued for filling up an unspecified number of posts of Sub-Inspector of Statistics. A selection was held pursuant to the advertisement issued and, on the basis thereof, a combined select list of 150 candidates as well as district-wise select lists of the candidates included in the combined select list were prepared. It must be noticed, at this stage, that though district-wise select list were prepared, the advertisement in question did not specify the vacancies on a district-wise basis. The writ petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 of the select list prepared for Dhubri district. However, in the combined select list the position of the two writ petitioners appeared at serial Nos. 89 and 108 and in the said combined select list the names of the respondents No. 3 to 66 appeared above the names of the two writ petitioners. By an order dated 12.12.85,31 persons including the petitioners whose names appeared in the combined select list were appointed in the post of Sub-Inspector. The appointments made, evidently and admittedly, were not on the basis of the inter-se merit as mentioned in the combined select list. After the aforesaid 31 persons were appointed in the manner indicated above, an order dated 17.12.86 was issued to the effect that there will be no further appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector of Statistics from the select list/lists and that the 31 persons who were already appointed were to be terminated. As against the aforesaid order dated 17.12.86, two batches of writ petitions were filed by before this Court -the first batch con- sisted of 5 writ petitions filed by the 31 appointed candidates whose appointments were to be terminated by the order dated 17.12.86. The second batch consisted of a single writ petition i.e. Civil Rule No. 1332/86 which was filed by 21 empanelled candidates including some of the private respondents No. 3 to 66 against the decision contained in the order dated 17.12.86 to the effect that there will be no further appointments in the post of Sub- Inspector of Statistics. Both the two batches of writ petitions were answered by this Court by two separate orders dated 6.3.1987 allowing both sets of writ petitions, In other words, this Court by the two orders dated 6.3.87 held that the termination proposed by the order 17.12.86 will not be authorized in law and further that the empanelled candidates would have a subsisting right for consideration of their cases for appointment. Against the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, special leave petitions were filed by the State which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.87 and 4.4.88 respectively. Thereafter, on 18.7.88 the 21 writ petitioners in C.R. No. 1332/86 were appointed and on two successive dates i.e. 20.4.90 and 8.10.90, another 81 persons from the select list (s) were appointed in the post of Sub-Inspector of Statistics. The private respondents No. 3 to 66 are amongst the aforesaid appointees made on the dates noticed above. While the matter was so situated, on 18.12.95 atentative seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Statistics was published, wherein, the 1985 batch of appointees including the two writ petitioners were shown to be senior to the private respondents No. 3 to 66. However, the aforesaid determination of seniority was corrected and in the final seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Statistics published on 27.10.97 the position was reversed and the 1985 appointees including the two writ petitioners were shown to be junior to the respondents No. 3 to 66. The aforesaid seniority having been made final on 16.12.98, 15 of the 31 persons who belong to the 1985 batch of appointees, including the two writ petitioners, filed an appeal being Appeal No. 1 ATA/ 98 before the learned Administrative Tribunal challenging the fixation of seniority as noticed above. By order dated 31.3.99, the learned Tribunal interfered with the determination of seniority made by the authority except in the cases of the persons at serial No.1 to 36 of the said seniority list, which position was maintained as the appellants before the Tribunal had no grievance in that regard. Acting pursuant to the order dated 31.3.99 passed by the learned Tribunal, a fresh provisional gradation list followed by a final gradation list dated 11.9.99 was published by the authority showing the 1985 batch appointees including the petitioners to be senior to the private respondents No. 3 to 66. Some of the respondents No. 3 to 66 and other affected persons, totalling 14 in number, instituted a fresh round of proceedings before the learned Tribunal i.e. 1OOATA/99 challenging the re-determination of seniority by which benefit of seniority was given to the 1985 batch of appointees. It is in the aforesaid proceeding that the impugned order dated 9.7.2001 has been passed by the learned Tribunal which has been followed up by the authority by another re-determination of the seniority; this time, in favour of the private respondents No. 3 to 66, which actions have been assailed in the present writ application.

(3.) I have heard Sri K. H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. R. K. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. G. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 3 to 66.1 have also read and perused the pleadings of the parties, the orders dated 6.3.87 passed by this Court in the writ proceedings instituted by the affected parties and the two) orders of the learned Tribunal dated 31.3.99 and 9.7.2001.