PRAFULLA CHANDRA SARMA Vs. GOKUL MOHAN HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 1984 for that purpose. The Government of Assam in the meantime vide communication dated 24. 11. 1984 informed APSC about relaxation of upper age limit by two years and accordingly a revised advertisement was issued by the APSC on 28. 11. 1984 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 from 05. 06. 1984 to 01. 08. 1985 and declared the result of the written examination on 22. 02. 1986. The APSC conducted the viva-voice test from 25. 04. 1986 to 30. 05. 1986 of those candidates who qualified in such written examination. After such process of interview, the APSC on 27. 06. 1986 send the list of candidates, to the Government, recomm-ended for appointment as ACS Class-I and ACS Class-II Officers. The Government of Assam thereafter by the notification dated 21. 07. 1986 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. 9. 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 27/6/86. 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. 9. 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. 6. 86.

(2.) THE writ appellants, who were directly recruited as Assam Civil Services Class-I Officers in the year 1986 pursuant to the recommendation of the APSC filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1869/95, challenging the said draft gradation list as on 01. 01. 1993, for placing them below the promotees in that year, i. e. 1986 and also challenging the amended provision of Rule 4 of the 1960 Rules as amended by the Assam Civil Services (Class-I) (amendment) Rules, 1986, notified on 21. 07. 1986, which writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 26. 03. 2002 on the ground that though the process of selection was initiated before the amendment of 1986, the Government had taken a conscious decision not to make any appointment till the Rule is amended. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. K. Ramalu Vs. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Ramalu reported in (1997) 3 SCC 59. The writ petitioners being aggrieved filed the writ appeal No. 5/2004.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted 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, which has been duly recorded in the order dated 07. 11. 2005. The learned counsel for the appellants on 03. 08. 2006 also filed a memo stating that the respondent Nos. 4,7,12,13,65,74 and 75 have either been expired or retired from service and, therefore, prays for deletion of their names and accordingly the names of those respondents were deleted from the list of the respondents.