DAGE TARAK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of State respondents and Mr. C. Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent Nos. 4-7.

(2.) There are four petitioners; two of them are graduates in Mechanical and Civil Engineering and other two are Master Degree holders in Economics and Political Science. Being unemployed, they have been looking for suitable jobs. They plead, in these days of increasingly menacing unemployment problem, the respondent authorities fancied to appoint the private respondent Nos. 4-7 on officiating and contract basis to the posts of Assistant Inspector (Tax & Excise) without making any public advertisement for open interview. Further, they plead that the concerned respondent authorities regularized such irregular and illegal appointments of the private respondents and that too, by granting one-time relaxation of the relevant provisions of the existing Recruitment Rules vide Order No. TAX (E)/58/97(Pt)983 dated 26.11.2007. They take on this, what they called 'completely illegal and arbitrary' action taken by the respondent authorities that has deprived the deserving candidates like the petitioners of the right of being considered for public employment.

(3.) Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the initial appointment of private respondent Nos. 4-7 on officiating and contract basis were made without any interview and selection and such appointments cannot be regularized unless recommended by the Arunachal Pradesh Selection Board/Public Service Commission through regular recruitment process. According to Mr. Pertin, both the initial appointment and subsequent regularization of services of the aforementioned private respondents have been made without resorting to regular recruitment process. The respondent authorities had resorted to a 'pick-and-choose' policy in the matter of filling-up the posts, in question, by regularizing the services of the private respondents dehors the relevant Recruitment Rules. The relaxation of rules, constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and getting the private respondents' cases recommended for regularization of services are all eye-wash only to make it appear that all have been done legally and properly. As an instance, it is pointed-out that one-time relaxation was made effective from a retrospective date, i.e., 26th November, 2007, whereas the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which recommended regularization of services of the private respondents was held on 23.11.2007. The decision of the DPC has taken place before relaxation of the Rules was extended/granted to the private respondents and as such, the regularization so granted to the private respondent Nos. 4-7 cannot be treated as legal and proper. The principle of relaxation of a particular provision of law, according to Mr. Pertin, has been set-out by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sukanti Mahapatra, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1650. As regards regularization of service of adhoc/contract/officiating employees, he cites the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that absorption/regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or adhoc employees, appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment, cannot be made unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is applicable to the present case and the appointments/regularization of the services of the private respondents is liable to be cancelled or set aside inasmuch as the initial appointments of the private respondents on officiating/contract basis were made without any interview and selection.