STATE OF ASSAM Vs. GAUTAM KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.96 of the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 4316/95 filed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Gauhati.

(2.) The facts briefly are that a few vacancies in the post of Enforcement Inspector under the Transport Department, Govt. of Assam had occurred in the year 1990 and 1991. The Assam Public Service Commission (for short the APSC) published Advertisement No.4/92 inviting applications for the said posits and the Respondent No.1, Gautam Kumar Das, amongst other candidates submitted their applications. By a letter dated 9th June '92, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department wrote to the APSC that there were nine vacancies in the post of Enforcement Inspectors, 25% of which are proposed to be filled up by promotion from amongst the ministerial cadre and the remaining by direct recruitment through the APSC and accordingly requested the APSC to recommend candidates for seven posts for direct recruitment, but if no suitable person is available from amongst the ministerial cadre, the persons in the waiting list recommended by the APSC may be appointed Thereafter, written examination and viva-voce were conducted by the APSC for the candidates and by a letter dated 26th May'95 of the APSC to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department, seven candidates were recommended in order of preference; and seven more candidates were recommended in the waiting list in order of preference for appointment to the vacancies in the post of Enforcement Inspector. In the said letter dated 26th May' 95 of the APSC, the name of the Respondent No. 1, Gautam Kumar Das was placed at the top of the waiting list. When the petitioner was not appointed on the basis of the said recommendations of the APSC, the Respondent No. 2 filed Civil Rule No. 4316/95 which was disposed of by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 30.1.96 directing the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department to appoint him against the post for which he was selected if necessary by removing the ad hoc appointee or the appointee under Regulation 3(0 of APSC (L & F) Regulation, 1951.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. B.P. Bora, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submitted that a reading of the impugned order dated 30.1.96 of the learned Single Judge would show that the writ petition has been disposed of following the decisions of the Court in the earlier Civil Rule No. 4131/95 and Civil Rule No. 2036/91, but in the aforesaid two earlier Civil Rules the writ petitioners had been placed in the select list of candidates by the APSC whereas in the present case the Respondent No. 2 was in the waiting list. Mr. Bora submitted that it is now settled by the Apex Court that no direction can be given to the authorities to appoint a candidate who has been placed in the waiting list. He further pointed out that, out of the nine vacancies in the post of Enforcement Inspector which has occurred in the years 1990 and 1991, 2 vacancies which represented 25% of the vacancies have to be filled up by promotion as provided in the Assam Transport Service Rules, 1983 as amended by the Assam Transport Service (Amendment) Rules, 1993.