IBRAHM ALI Vs. JUBER RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24.5.1996 a public notice was issued inviting applications from the candidates who have passed the Veterinary Field Assistant Training Course for appointment to some vacant posts of Veternary Field Assistants in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Selection Committee prepared a select list and submitted it to the respondent No. 2 on 20.11.96. Since there was inordinate delay in making the appointment, some of the selected candidates approached this court invoking the powers under Article 226 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to make the appointment as per select list. The Learned Single Judge by a common judgment delivered on 24,6.1998 disposed of four such writ petitions refusing to issue any direction as sought. Being aggrieved, the selected candidates who had filed the writ petitions have preferred Writ Appeals No. W.A. 176 of 1998, W.A. 196 of 1998, W.A. 238 of 1998, W.A. 240 of 1998 and W.A 246 of 1998. Two other writ petitions bearing No. W.P.(C) 1363 of 1999 and W.P. (C) 2494 of 1999 are awaiting disposal. Since the contentions and the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are the same, we proposed to dispose of the same by this common order.

(2.) The contention before the learned Single Judge was that the select list of 1996 prepared by the Selection Committee constituted by the appropriate authority cannot be by passed and appointment cannot be refused by the respondent-State. The subsequent advertisement issued on 6.12.97 and the letter dated 17.11.97 written by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam have been sought to be quashed on the ground that there is no justification on the part of the Respondent State to ignore the earlier selection and to go for a fresh selection in deprivation of the right of the appellants/petitioners.

(3.) The Respondent State in their affidavit-in-opposition advanced reasons to justify the above deprivation. According to the State, the list of 1996 was prepared during the subsistence of an embargo on appointment imposed by the State Government and the said list was not approved by the competent authority in addition, the state also pleaded that the fresh advertisement was issued as the trained candidates of subsequent batches should also be given a chance to compete for the available posts.