SAJAL SINHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts emerging from the pleadings of both the parties depict that only the rule of "pick and choose" and not any service jurisprudence in the matter of public employment is prevailing in the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu (for short 'kaac' ). This observation is being made on the basis of the following facts.

(2.) THE office of the respondent No. 4 advertised 2 (two) posts of Village Level Extension Worker (VLEW) and one post of Laboratory Attendant laying down certain qualifications and the procedure of appointment. Accordingly a written test, followed by viva-voce, was held in the month of September, 2003. Thereafter, a merit list of selected candidates was published by the Member Secretary of the Selection Board on 11. 9. 2003. As per the said merit list the writ petitioner was placed at 4th position. However, in the meeting of the Selection Board held on 24. 9. 2003, the entire merit list was reshuffled and a fresh list of candidates giving new position was published. For instance, the petitioner who stood at 4th position was taken to 15th position. The candidate who was at the 2nd position in the merit list was elevated to first position. Similarly, the candidate whose position was 16th in the original merit list was brought to the 2nd position in the final list; the candidate whose position was 9th in the original list was brought to 5th position and so on. Apart from this anomaly, instead of appointing two persons as VLEWs as per the advertisement the KAAC appointed as many as 7 (seven) persons. The petitioner, who was occupying 4th position in the original merit list was sidelined, since he was placed at 15th position in the reshuffled list, so called final list prepared by the selection board on 29. 4. 2003. The arbitrariness did not end there. The KAAC even appointed two persons who were not educationally qualified for the post of VLEW. In the additional affidavit of the petitioner, it has been stated that one Nirmal Changmai and one Shri Suren Tokbi who stood 15th and 16th position in the original merit list have also been appointed although, they did not possess educational qualification of Higher Secondary Examination as per the terms of the appointment incorporated in the advertisement. Besides this, the KAAC also appointed the respondents No. 6 and 7 as VLEWs on temporary basis after the expiry of validity of the select list, although these persons never appeared in the written test or interview. In this way, persons from outside the select list have also been appointed. The factual position has been admitted by the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in their affidavit filed on 26. 5. 2008.

(3.) THE respondents case is that the select list was valid for a period of one year from 24. 9. 2003 and during this period only 7 (seven) persons were appointed and since the validity of the select list has already expired the petitioner cannot claim for any appointment. With regard to appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7, it has been pleaded by the respondents that these persons have been appointed purely on temporary basis after the expiry of validity of the select list and as such the petitioner can not challenge their appointments.