UTTAM KUMAR DOLEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Patnaik,J. - In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a directions on the respondents to regularise them in service and not to terminate their services.

(2.) The brief facts are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.7.90, the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Enforcement Inspector under the Transport and Tourism Department, Government of Assam and they were called for interview before a Selection Board in the month of March, 1990 and were selected and appointed as Enforcement Inspectors by order dated 4.12.91 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport and Tourism Department under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951, for a period of 4 (four) months Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioners joined as Enforcement Inspectors and their term of appointment was extended from time to time. Thereafter Advertisement No. 4/92 was issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (for short the APSC) inviting applications for regular recruitment to a few vacant posts of Enforcement Inspector under the Transmit and Tourism Department, Govt. of Assam in response to which the petitioners submitted their application. The APSC conducted a written test and the viva voce for different candidates including the petitioners who applied for the said posts but the names of the petitioners did not find place in the list of candidates selected and recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 26.5.95 to the Transport Department. Apprehending that the petitioners would be terminated from their services and that the candidates who have been selected by the APSC would be appointed in their place, the petitioners filed the present Civil Rule No. 2036/95 and 1005/95. In C.R. No. 2036/95, the learned single Judge while issuing notice on 19.5.95 directed that in the meanwhile the petitioners shall not be ousted. Similarly in C.R. No. 1005/95, the learned single Judge issued notice of motion on 10.3.95 and passed interim order that the petitioner shall not be removed from service in the meanwhile.

(3.) At the hearing Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.R. No. 2036/95, vehemently contended that pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.7.90, as many as 1341 candidates applied for the post of Enforcement Inspector out of which 433 candidates including the petitioners appeared in the interview [before the Selection Board and nine candidates were selected by the Selection Board. He further argued that the petitioners; had been appointed pursuant to the said selection made by the Selection Board and had put in about 5 years of service as Enforcement Inspector and should not be terminated from service at this stage and instead should be regularised in service by a direction of this Court Mr. Bhuyan submitted that a chart has been filed by the State respondents pursuant to direction of this Court in the connected Writ Appeal No. 76/96 which would show that the petitioners do not block the appointment of any candidate who has been selected by the APSC and hence the petitioners should be allowed to continue until the results of another written examination conducted by the APSC for recruitment to the posts of Enforcement Inspectors and taken by the petitioners are declared.