GOKUL MOHAN HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are directly recruited as Assam Civil Services Class I Officers in the year 1986, filed the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 1869 of 1995 challenging the draft gradation list, as on 01.01.93, of the officers of Assam Civil Services, for placing them after the promotees of that year i.e. 1986 and also challenging the amended provision contained in proviso to rule 4 of the Assam Civil Services (Class I) Rules 1960, amended by the Assam Civil Services (Class-I) (amendment) Rules 1986 and notified on 21.07.1986. Though the appellants in the said writ petition have challenged the vires of said amended provision, the claim of the appellants is basically the fixation of seniority, which according to them ought to have been fixed in terms of the unamended provision of Assam Civil Service (Class I) Rules 1960, as stood price to 1986 amendment, as the process for direct recruitment was initiated and selection was completed prior to the amendment of the said rules. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order, by placing reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Dr. K. Ramalu Vs. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Ramalu (1997) 3 SCC 59), dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants basically on the ground that though the process for selection was initiated before the amendment of 1986, the Government having taken a conscious decision not to make any appointment till the rule is amended, no interference can be made. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief is that the Government of Assam on 07.03.1984 requested the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) to make selection for direct recruitment to 30 number of posts in each category of ACS Class I and ACS Class II and accordingly an advertisement was issued by the APSC on 02.05.84 for that purpose. The Government of Assam in the meantime vide communication dated 24.11.84 informed APSC about relaxation of upper age limit by two years and accordingly a revised advertisement was issued by the APSC on 28.11.84 incorporating the relaxation of two years in the upper age limit. Pursuant to such process of selection the written test as required under Assam Civil Services (Class I) Rules, 1960 (in short 1960 Rules) was conducted by the APSC, between the period of 05.06.85 to 01.08.85 and declared the result of the written examination on 22.02.86. The APSC conducted the viva-voice test from 25.04.86 to 30.05.86 of those candidates who qualified in such written examination. After such process of interview, the APSC on 27.06.86 send the list of candidates to the Government recommended for appointment as ACS Class I and ACS Class II Officers. The Government of Assam thereafter by the impugned notification dated 21.07.86 amended the proviso to Rule 4 of 1960 Rules, whereby the quota for promotion from ACS Class II to ACS Class I was left to the discretion of the Governor and the earlier quota of 50% each between the promotees and direct recruit was done away with. By the said amendment the eligibility criteria for promotion from ACS II to ACS I was also reduced from 8 years to 5 years. By notification dated 11.09.86, 129 ACS Class II officers were promoted to ACS Class I, which includes the present private respondents and thereafter during the month of October 1986 the Government appointed 45 selected candidates in ACS Class I (Jr. Grade) pursuant to the recommendation of the APSC dated 27.06.86, A decision for merger of ACS Class I and ACS Class II was thereafter taken by the Government and accordingly on 16.12.89 both ACS Class I and ACS Class II were merged into a common class i.e. ACS Class I. A draft gradation list was published in the month of June 1993 wherein all 129 ACS Class II officers who were promoted to ACS Class I vide notification dated 11.09.86 were placed above those 45 directly recruited ACS Class I officers, who were recruited in the month of October 1986 pursuant to the APSC recommendation dated 27.06.86.

(3.) It appears from the record of this writ appeal mat in the order dated 07.11.05 the submission of the learned counsel for the appellamts that they do not want to proceed against the respondent Nos. 6, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28, 41, 71, 72 and 77 on the ground that they have either retired from service or died in the meantime, has been recorded. The learned counsel for the appellant on 03.08.2006 also filed a memo to the effect that the respondent Nos. 4, 7, 12, 13, 65, 74 andi 75 have either expired or retired from service, therefore, prays for deletion of their names. In view of the above, the names of these persons are deleted from the list of respondents.