DIPANKAR DAS Vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was provisionally engaged as a outsourced Sahayak in the new constructed 33/KV Dhupdhara Sub-Station on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000/- per month vide office order No. 153 dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure-3). Following the appointment order, the petitioner was not allowed to join the post on account of difficulties created from unforeseen quarters. He therefore vide his letter dated 14.10.2015 submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 to allow him join temporarily under his establishment. Thereafter in partial modification of the earlier office order dated 16.09.2015, the respondent No. 3 issued office order No. 168 dated 31.10.2015 (Annexure VI) provisionally engaging the petitioner under the same terms and conditions but however posting him at Goalpara Electrical Sub-Division. The petitioner submitted his joining report to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Goalpara Electrical Sub-Division on 011.2015 stating that he has joined the post. The respondent No. 3 however to the surprise of the petitioner issued a corrigendum vide office order No. 171 dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-VIII) whereby it was indicated that the petitioner had been wrongly shown to be engaged as outsourced Sahayak vide the office order dated 16.09.2015. In fact, it was the respondent No. 6, who was to be appointed against the post instead of the petitioner. The respondent No. 6 and the petitioner shared the same name. Accordingly the corrigendum showing the appointment of the respondent No. 6 was issued.

(3.) Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities having issued the appointment order in favour of the petitioner cannot simply cancel the appointment by issuing a corrigendum inasmuch as the petitioner had indeed submitted his application for appointment as outsourced Sahayak and there is no mandatory requirement of holding an interview or any selection process. In fact the petitioner on earlier occasion had also been appointed as outsourced Sahayak and had served for about 5 (five) years. In that view of the matter, he submits that the petitioner should be allowed to join the post to which he is appointed and the corrigendum dated 16.11.2015 should be set aside.