Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 345 (GAU)

Puspanjali Barman v. State of Assam

1999-10-13

J.N.SARMA

body1999
In terms of regular selection the petitioner herein was appointed as Supervisor in the office of the Child Development Project Office, Sipajhar ICDS Project vide Annexure D dated 6th January, 1999. That is quoted below: “Subject to the Police verification and Medical Fitness Certificate Smt Puspanjali Barman C/o D/o Shri Lt............... Balipathar College Road Village Chamata PO Chamata Dist Nalbari is hereby temporarily appointed as Supervisor in the scale of pay Rs 3,490-90-4,600 EB 480-120-5-175-6,600-250-8,100 p.m plus other allowances as admissible under rule in the office of the Child Development Project Officer Sipajhar ICDS Project with immediate effect. The incumbent will furnish a fitness certificate from the competent Medical Officer in the time of joining. This appointment order will be valid up to 15 days from the receipt of this letter.” 2. Earlier to it there was an advertisement on 8.3.96 and written test was held and thereafter oral interview was also held. That will be evident from Annexures A, B and C to the writ application and the petitioner was successful in the written test and oral interview but the most interesting part is that the respondent No. 4 was the Child Development Project Officer at Sipajhar when the petitioner went to join there. When the petitioner got the appointment letter and went to join there the respondent No. 4 did not allow the petitioner to join there stating that he has not received any such instruction from the authority. That finds place in paragraph 8 of the writ application. That is quoted below: “That the petitioner went to Sipajhar for joining as per the appointment letter on 18.1.99 after Bihu Holidays. But Sri Kulen Saikia the CDPO, Sipajhar informed the petitioner that he had not received any instruction or letter regarding the appointment of the petitioner and therefore asked the petitioner to visit after some days. So that in the meantime he could obtain confirmation of her appointment The petitioner however submitted her appointment letter on that very day.” 3. Thereafter, when the petitioner again went to join in the 1st week of February, 1999 this time the respondent No, 4 took up the plea that in terms of the letter of appointment she was to join within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order but she failed to do, so she lost her right to join in the post. That finds place in paragraph 10 of the writ application. 4. It is on this background that this writ application was filed praying that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to allow in the post in terms of the appointment letter quoted above.. 5. This Court earlier issued Notice of Motion on 27.9.99 and the notice was made returnable within 15 days considering the urgency of this matter and there was an order that the notice shall be served personally or by hand on the respondent No. 4 the then CDPO. That also has been done and the notice was received by this respondent on 7th October, 1999 as will be evident from the letter produced by Sri MK Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner. That letter is kept in record. The learned Govt. . Advocate has not been able to receive any instruction and I do not feel that the learned Govt. . Advocate should be granted any more time to receive instruction in view of the fact that the authority was not in a position to control its own bureaucrats and officers and the bureaucrats and officers harassed the petitioner and caused injustice to her and in that process the petitioner has not been able to do service for the last seven months. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, and the authority is directed to allow the petitioner to join in her post within three days from the date of receipt of this order. The petition is allowed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000 and if necessary the cost may be realized from the person-responsible for causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary for these seven months and she also lost her seniority for this period of seven months in her service career and that cannot be compensated in terms of money. 7. The petitioner shall obtain the certified copy of this order and shall produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of this order.