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 LD 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 LD 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 Sl. 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 LD 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 ie 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. 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 the 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 relief's 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 LID 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 Govt on appointment of Grade III and IV employees, the deponent had to terminate the service of the petitioner along with others. 4. In the affidavit-in-reply, the writ petitioner reiterated the averments made in the writ petition. It is further submitted that although the service of the petitioner was terminated along with others, the service of Shri Subhash Deka appearing at SI No. 1 in Annexure 10 was not terminated. Shri Deka is still working as LD , Assistant in the office of the Labour Commissioner. The writ petitioner and Shri Deka were both selected in the year 1995 and their names figured in the select list. Thus, there has been discrimination between him and Shri Deka resulting in violation of the petitioner's right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5.1 have heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. The writ petitioner and Shri Deka were both selected in the year 1995 and their names figured in the select list. Thus, there has been discrimination between him and Shri Deka resulting in violation of the petitioner's right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5.1 have heard Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. AR Banerjee, leaned Govt Advocate for the respondents. 6. It would appear from Annexures 4,6,7 and 8 that the writ petitioner was appointed as LD Assistant from time to time on stopgap arrangement although his position in the merit list is stated to be at SI No.2. The respondent No. 2 in his affidavit-in-opposition admitted that a select list was prepared in the month of May, 1995 but failed to deny the claim of the writ petitioner that he secured the 2nd position. In view of this it has to be presumed that the petitioner had appeared in the interview for selection for appointment to the post of LD Assistant and secured 2nd position in the merit list. In spite of this, the respondent No. 2 without appointing him on regular basis indulged in ad hoc appointment from time to time. This conduct on the part of the respondent No. 2 cannot be appreciated merely for the reason that the Staff Selection Board was constituted by the Govt of Assam and appointment to the post in Garde III and IV was banned. The respondents have not been able to show that the Govt ban was only in respect of regular appointment. It is also not denied that the Staff Selection Board was dissolved in July, 1996. From Annexure 10, we find that the petitioner along with three others were again appointed on 22nd July, 1996. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, this appointment was made on regular basis in pursuance to the merit list prepared in 1995 and, as such, the subsequent order appointing the petitioner for a period of 3 months communicated vide office order No. 558 dated 14.10.1996 was ill-motivated to oust the petitioner from service. 7. It is a fact that the order dated 22nd July, 1996 was issued after dissolution of the Staff Selection Board. 7. It is a fact that the order dated 22nd July, 1996 was issued after dissolution of the Staff Selection Board. From the situation above and from the fact that Shri Subhash Deka, another selected candidate, was also appointed along with the writ petitioner it can be construed that the order of appointment issued on 22nd July, 1996 was intended to materialise the select list prepared in the month of May, 1995. The argument advanced by the learned Govt Advocate that by that time the period for one year expired is of no consequence under the circumstances detailed above. In order to appreciate the nature of appointment made on 22nd July, 1996, the relevant part of this order is quoted below: “Office order No. 385 dated Guwahati, the 22nd July, 1996. Subject to discharge at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason thereof the following persons are appointed as LD Assistant with effect from the date shown against each. 1. Shri Subhas Deka temporary, LD Assistant is allowed to continue in the a scale of pay of Rs. 1125-20-1225-30-1435-EB-40-1635-502035-60-2215 PM plus other allowances as admissible under Rule w.e.f. 9.6.96 and posted in the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati 16. 2. Shri Sonit Kumar Das, temporary LD Assistant is allowed to continue in the scale of pay of Rs. H25-20-1225-30-1435-EB-40-1635-502035-60-2215PM plus other allowances as admissible under Rules w.e.f. 17.7.96 and posted in the office of the Labour Commissioner, Assam, Guwahati 16.” 8. Although the appointment letter as above shows that appointment was made subject to discharge at any time without notice and without assigning any reason thereof, the appointment so made cannot be said to be ad hoc or stop gap appointment for the purpose of administrative necessity. From this point of view, the subsequent order No. 558 passed by the Labour Commissioner on 14th October, 1996 cannot but be deprecated as arbitrary and unreasonable. In this order, the service of the writ petitioner who was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 22nd July, 1996 was converted into an appointment for a period of 3 months. It is submitted that Shri Subhash Deka who is at SI No. 1 of the appointment order dated 22nd July, 1996 is still continuing in service. In this order, the service of the writ petitioner who was appointed on regular basis vide order dated 22nd July, 1996 was converted into an appointment for a period of 3 months. It is submitted that Shri Subhash Deka who is at SI No. 1 of the appointment order dated 22nd July, 1996 is still continuing in service. This position makes it clear that the order dated 14th October, 1996 was issued to derogate the permanent nature of appointment made vide order dated 22nd July, 1996 with an ultimate object of ousting him from service. In fact, the circumstances discussed above clearly indicate that all norms of fair practice have been given a go-bye by the Respondent No.2 in dealing with the affairs relating to appointment to get the three posts. In the considered opinion of this Court the order dated 22nd July, 1996 being permanent in nature should not have been disturbed by the order dated 14th October, 1996 and, that too, without any notice to the writ petitioner. I consider this act on the part of the respondent authorities as naked violation of all the fundamental rules of office procedure which eventually resulted in violation of the petitioner's right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot but be set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 14.10.1996 and 5.12.1996 (Annexures 11 and 12) are hereby set aside. This Court vide order dated 21.3.97 directed the respondents not to fill up the post. In view of this, it is further ordered that the petitioner shall be appointed to the aforesaid post forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-to be paid to the writ petitioner by the respondent State within 2 (two) months.