INDIRA HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a regular vacancy due to the retirement of one leacher vide Annexure- II, It was also in pursuance of a policy decision taken hy the Govt. that the teacher serving in the school shall have a better claim for regularisation if the person is otherwise qualified. That policy decision is available at Annexure-I - THE petitioner herein was earlier a Hindi Teacher on a fixed pay and as and when vacancy was the in pursuance of the policy decision, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. That order is dated 30.1.96. It appears that the respondent No. 5 was appointed against the resultant vacancy and she was selected hy the Minister of State, Secondary Education, Assam and she was asked to join in the school hy the Inspector of School. THE Minister made the selection of respondent No. 5. That is available at Annexures-V and VI to the writ application, wherein it is specifically staled that respondent No. 5 was selected hy the Minister without following the due process of law, A Minister does not have the power to make a selection of a candidate and give appointment according to the pleasure, whims and caprice. A Minister is also hound hy the rule of law and if it is not accepted the very concept of rule of law itself will be shuttered and it is not expected if such a situation has brought in the notice of the Court, the Court shall be dumb spectator lo such a situation. Accordingly I direct that the petitioner who was appointed in pursuance of Ihe policy decision shall be allowed to work in the resultant vacancy till it is regularly filled up by following the due process of law if necessary hy throwing out the respondent No.

(2.) BUT it is made clear that the authority may not resort to throw out the respondent No. 5. if there is vacancy she also shall be allowed in continue subject to filing up of the post by following the due process of law. I have heard Mr. GK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H.N. Sarma. learned Govt Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. None appears for respondent No. 5. With the above direction and observation, this writ application is allowed.