KULADHAR PHUKAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed to quash the impugned orders dated 10.4.95 and 20.3.96 (Annexure- 9 and 11) with a further prayer that a declaration be made that the petitioner belongs to Assam Legal Service and as such a direction be issued to the respondents to confirm him in service (Assam Legal Service) with retrospective effect. Annexures 9 and 11 are quoted below :-

(2.) the brief facts are as follows : On 2.7.77 the petitioner was appointed in Grade III of Assam Judicial Service, i.e.. Annexure-1 to the writ application. On 5.7.77 the petitioner joined in Judicial Class III and was posted at Tinsukia. On 27.2.86 vide Annexure-3 an advertisement was published for the post of Deputy Secretary in Grade III of Assam Legal Service and it was subsequently stated in the advertisement that the appointment to the above post will be made in accordance with Regulation 3 (e) of the A.P.S.C. (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1951 to meet the immediate need. R. 3 (e) of the aforesaid Regulations provides as follows :

(3.) The petitioner has not claimed that his service was regularised in terms of Rule 2 (c) as quoted above. Further, it appears that the initial advertisement was made under A.P.S.C. (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 and power was sought to be exercised under Rule 3 (e) of that Rule. Rule 3 (e) speaks of officiating appointment to be made by direct recruitment to a permanent post and Rule 3 of the ad hoc rules speaks of ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment to a temporary post. So, there is a vast difference between the two. One is an officiating appointment to a permanent post and the other is an ad hoc appointment to a temporary post. Be that as it may, we will come to this aspect of the matter alt a later point of time.