SONIT KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order No. 558 dated 14.10.1996 and order No. 388 dated 5.12.1996 and for consequential directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the post of L.D. Assistant.

(2.) The petitioner's case in brief is that he is a graduate and his elder brother Shri Kulen Das was hit by Police bullet during the period of Assam Agitation and has become permanently disabled. The petitioner being brother of Shri Kulen Das, a victim of Assam agitation, is entitled to certain privileges as per Assam Accord signed on 14th August, 1985. While he was in search of a job an advertisement was issued by the Respondent No.2 for recruitment to the post of L.D. Assistant in 1994. The petitioner applied for the post. He appeared in the written test followed by interview held on 13.4.1995. A select list was prepared but it was never published. However, the petitioner came to know from reliable source that his name appeared at SI. No.2 of the said select list. Instead of giving him a regular appointment, the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 30.10.1995 appointed him as L.D. Assistant as stop-gap arrangement on condition that his services would be terminated as soon as suitable candidate is recommended by the Assam Staff Selection Board. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time. Although the said Assam Staff Selection Board was dissolved in July, 1996, the service of the petitioner has not been regularised in consideration of his position in the merit list. By an order dated 25.1.1996, the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 1.2.1996. However, on the same day i.e. 1.2.1996, he was again appointed for a period of 4 (four) months. The authorities in the same manner indulged in extending his services from time to time. He also submitted a representation to the Minister-in-Charge, Labour, for his regular appointment. The Respondent No.2 vide order dated 22.7.1996 appointed the petitioner along with 3 other persons on regular basis. It was stated in the said order that the appointment was subject to discharge at any time and without assigning any reason thereof. Thereafter, the respondents for reasons best known to them by order dated 14.10.1996 again appointed the petitioner for a period of 3 (three) months ending on 14.1.1997. Thus, the nature of appointment which was made on regular basis was sought to be changed without any valid reason. Eventually, the service of the petitioner was terminated vide order No. 388 dated 5.12.1996. Describing the aforesaid orders dated 14.10.1996 and 5.12.1996 as arbitrary, capricious and ill-motivated, the petitioner has filed this petition for the reliefs already mentioned above.

(3.) The Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit- in-opposition denying the allegations made by the writ petitioner. It is pleaded that appointment of the petitioner to the post of L.D. Assistant was purely temporary and it was made as stop-gap arrangement for administrative convenience with a condition that his service would be terminated as soon as suitable candidate is recommended by the Staff Selection Board. It is further stated that a merit list, as alleged, was prepared in the month of May, 1995, but no appointment could be made from the said select list which becomes invalid after expiry of one year. In view of ban imposed by the State Government on appointment of Grade-Ill and IV employees, the deponent had to terminate the service of the petitioner along with others.