TASHI DHONDUP Vs. BANDANA NASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N Ratan, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. R Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7; Mr. D Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 8 & 9; Mr. T Bayor, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10 and Ms. Wanglat, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 11 to 17 in WA 7 (AP) 2018. Also heard Mr. TT Tara, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. R Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 10; Mr. D Soki, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. T Bayor, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 in WA 12 (AP) 2018.

(2.) Both the writ appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order. The brief facts of both the appeals are stated as follows: WA 7 (AP) 2018

(3.) The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed in WP(C) 642 (AP)/2016. The appellants were appointed as Progress Assistants on contract basis under the Rural Development Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2009. The respondent nos. 1 to 7 (writ petitioners) were also appointed as Progress Assistants/ Extension Officer (credit) (for short, PA/EO) on contract basis after the appellants were appointed and as such, the appellants were shown senior to the writ petitioners in the seniority list. In the year 2015 there arose 12 (twelve) vacancies of PA/EO (credit) due to retirement/ promotion etc. of the incumbents. The appellants, five in numbers, were given officiating appointments in the said vacancies vide order dated 29.07.2015 on the ground that they had put in substantive years of service on contract basis and also upon the consideration of their seniority. The respondent nos. 11 to 17 (who were respondents in WP(C) 642 (AP)/2016) were directly appointed in the remaining 7 (seven) vacancies. Being aggrieved, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 (writ petitioners) challenged the appointments of the respondent nos. 11 to 17 by the WP(C) 642 (AP)/2016 on the ground that the said respondent nos. 11 to 17 were junior to the respondent nos. 1 to 7. The present appellants were not made as party respondents in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 whereby the appointment orders of the appellants as well as the private respondents (respondent nos. 11 to 17) though not quashed and set aside but it was made clear that all the twelve posts should be advertised and recruitment on regular basis should be held as per recruitment rules of the service within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the said order. The learned Single Judge further directed that in case the recruitment process is not completed within a period of 3 (three) months, the service of the appellants as well as the private respondents in WP(C) 642 (AP)/2016 who were appointed on officiating basis shall automat-ically come to an end on the expiry of the three months' period. Accordingly, this appeal is filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed in WP(C) 642 (AP)/2016. WA 12 (AP) 2018