SANTOSH RAI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Sikkim (for short, 'AAG') with Mr. Karma Thinlay and Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned State Counsel on behalf of official respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Tashi Rabden Barfungpa, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 3 to 37.

(2.) THE Office Order dated 13.03.2006 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Secretary to the Government of Sikkim, Human Resource Development Department (hereinafter referred to as 'HRDD') absorbing as many as 35 deputationists as Assistant Education Officers (for short, 'the AEOs') in HRDD without holding any selection process in accordance with Notification No. 1247/EST/EDN dated 24.06.1997, having relaxed the terms and conditions laid down in the said Notification, has been assailed in the instant writ proceeding being initiated by 9 (nine) aggrieved Graduate Teachers with the specific allegations of arbitrariness, nepotism and discrimination in issuing such absorption depriving them of being selected to such posts of AEOs.

(3.) LEADING the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel has eloquently stated that while the petitioners were working as Graduate Teachers along with private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 to 37, all those private respondents went on deputation to the post of AEOs in HRDD in the years between 2001 to 2004. Since they were on deputation without affecting the petitioners' service conditions, such deputation of those private respondents was not being challenged by the petitioners. However, to their utter dismay and surprise, the authority by impugned Office Order dated 13.03.2006 has absorbed all those 35 deputationists as regular AEOs in the department concerned without any selection test/interview whatsoever to the exclusion of the petitioners who have also possessed all requisite qualifications for such selection. No opportunity for such selection whatsoever was ever afforded to them and thereby depriving the petitioners, the respondents No. 3 to 37 were absorbed/appointed in the administrative job of AEOs. It is, therefore, strongly submitted that in the process of absorbing the private respondents, the authority has not only violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 24.06.1997 but also have gone beyond to contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners in the public employment by the Constitution of India under Articles 14 and 16.