A.H. SAIKIA, J.— Heard Mr P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr A. Thakur, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.99 by which his appointment as Chowkidar in the TRP Hindi ME School, vide order dated 9.11.99, has been kept in abeyance without affording any opportunity whatsoever to him. 3. Rule was issued on 8.3.2000 with the direction to list the matter for hearing in the first week of April 2000 as fixed item. Despite notices, no affidavit-in-opposition has been forthcoming till date from the State-respondents. Moreso, inspite of the specific order dated 3.4.2002, no record has also been produced before this Court on behalf of the State-respondents to show cause as to why the order of appointment of the petitioner was kept in abeyance. At the time of hearing of this matter to-day, on pointed asking, Mr Thakur learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate has expressed his utter helplessness and inability for production of the relevant case records stating that inspite of their repeated intimations and requests, the concerned authorities are not sending any information or instructions as sought. It has become an usual practice of the part of the learned Govt. Advocates not to furnish any records or instructions despite ample and sufficient opportunities afforded to them. According to them they are not getting any instructions, intimations, comments or even records whatsoever from the concerned authorities in order to enable them to prepare an effective affidavit or to produce the case records as per direction of this Court. As a result, the Court is not getting any proper and required assistance from the stand of the State Counsel for effective adjudication of the case where the State is involved. The Court is totally detained and restrained from getting the clear and correct factual position of the Government side in a case where the State is a litigant and accordingly, the Court has no other alternative but to rely on the averments and contentions made in the writ petition itself. But this cannot always be encouraged inasmuch as the same may send an unwholesome signal affecting the justice delivery system itself. It is really depressing and distressing why the Government cannot file any counter or produce the relevant records in time or as and when required or directed. What ails the State-respondents? But this cannot always be encouraged inasmuch as the same may send an unwholesome signal affecting the justice delivery system itself. It is really depressing and distressing why the Government cannot file any counter or produce the relevant records in time or as and when required or directed. What ails the State-respondents? Why have such apathy and non-chalant attitude - been shown by the concerned authorities in complying with the Court's direction to file the response or to produce related records of the case within time frame? It appears from the submissions made by the learned Govt. Advocate almost in all cases that there are total lack of co-operation and co­ordination between the State counsel and the State Departmental authorities. It is told that there is a fleet of Government Advocate engaged by the Government and various concerned departments including the instrumentalities of the State. Unfortunately it is the day to day experience of the Court that no one is properly and adequately briefed by the department concerned by furnishing instructions or comments or records and as a result there remain creases on the performance of the Govt. counsel in conducting the Govt. cases that cannot be ironed out. 4. It is an admitted position that State coffer has been over-burdened in meeting the expenditures in litigations because Government and its instrumentalities are largest litigants in the State and thousands of Government cases are pending for disposal before different Courts including High Courts. A huge amount of public money has been spent in fighting the cases involving the Government. Therefore, the unsatisfactory manner in which these cases are conducted has become a matter of great concern for all including the High Court. Even the Apex Court felt deeply pained to note this sorry state of affairs in conducting Government cases and expressed its anguish in a case of Union of India-Vs-Rahul Rasgotra, reported in 1994(2) SCC-600 in paragraph 14 which is extracted hereunder:- "14. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to place on record our deep distress at the manner in which the cases on behalf of the Government are generally conducted even in this Court and also when the Government comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an adverse order made against it. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to place on record our deep distress at the manner in which the cases on behalf of the Government are generally conducted even in this Court and also when the Government comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an adverse order made against it. We do so with a feeling almost of despair since our constant lament orally and, at times, even in writing has so far evinced no appropriate response for improvement. On a similar occasion, this Court in Union of India-Vs-A. Rhadakrishnan (1991 Supp(2) SCC 208 supplied by the Court) observed thus; (SCC P 209para-l) - "This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Government even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to affect the staff pattern in several units. In spite of this fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the required materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed. The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments that better performance is not possible. We, therefore, concluded the hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials. It is indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour....." There is no improvement in the situation. An argument was advanced on behalf of the respondents that the cadre allocation to respondent No. 1 was made prior to allotment of the service to him on account of which it was invalid. Material documents to negative the same must be in possession of the Government of India but they were not produced before the Tribunal or even before us, inspite of opportunity given by us. The learned Additional Solicitor General expressed his utter helplessness in the matter and informed us that his efforts to obtain and produce those documents from the authorities concerned had failed. This shows the apathy of the persons responsible for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Government of India. The learned Additional Solicitor General expressed his utter helplessness in the matter and informed us that his efforts to obtain and produce those documents from the authorities concerned had failed. This shows the apathy of the persons responsible for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Government of India. We are not sure whether such lapses of the persons responsible for conduct of the case on behalf of the Government are deliberate or inadvertent but they are certainly culpable which need to be investigated by the authorities concerned to identify the deliquents and punish them in public interest. It is time that the derelicts are also held accountable and liable for the loss of public money due to their lapses. The stage is now reached for taking drastic steps to arrest further decadence and to implement the avowed promises held out for improvement of the working of the system. Government being the largest litigants, radical improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litigation and ensuring proper conduct of the necessary litigation. Unless the desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the right earnest, any number of seminars and conferences to devise means for reducing the backlog in Courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein, are empty slogans. We reiterate this with the fond hope that the authorities concerned would wake up to the true malaise and work to make the programme of improving its machinery a reality." 5. Keeping in view the above observation of the Apex Court this Court hopes and expects that the State shall look into the entire matter seriously and sincerely and take all necessary and effective steps to improve such sorry state of affairs in the Court with regard to the Government cases in filing the Government responses, production of relevant records before this Court in time and more importantly briefing the learned Government counsel to arrest their grievances relating to non-furnishing of instructions or related records. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed in the post mentioned above after due selection by the screening committee of Guwahati Sub-Division vide order dated 9.11.99 (Annexure P/l to the writ petition). But immediately after a couple of days on 17.11.99 (Annexure P/ 2 to the writ petition) the said appointment order of the petitioner was kept in abeyance without assigning any reason. 7. But immediately after a couple of days on 17.11.99 (Annexure P/ 2 to the writ petition) the said appointment order of the petitioner was kept in abeyance without assigning any reason. 7. The order of appointment dated 9.11.99 may be reproduced as under: - "Govt. of Assam Office of the District Elementary Education Officer :: Kamrup :: Guwahati-5. Order Subject to the approval of the DEE, Assam and subject to satisfactory police verification report Sri Seva Kant. Jha read up to Class IX is hereby appointed temporarily as Chowkidar in the scale of pay Rs 2450/- to 3670/- p.m. plus other allowance as admissible under the rules in T.R.P. Hindi M.E. School with effect from the date of his joining vice Sri Laxmi Kant Jha, Chowkidar retired. The appointment is made on purely temporary basis and terminable without notice and assigning any reasons thereof. The appointment has been made as per selection by the screening committee of Guwahati/Rangiya Sub-Division. Sd/- P.C. Baruah, District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup, Guwahati-9. Memo No. DEEO/Misc.10/86/20695-102 dt9.ll.99." 8. The impugned order dated 17.11.99 runs as follows:- "Govt. of Assam Office of the District Elementary Education Officer : Kamrup : Ghy-7 Order The appointment order issued under this office Memo No. DEEO/Misc-10/86/20695- 102 dated 9.11.99 is hereby kept-in-abeyance. SdA P.C. Baruah, District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup, Ghy-7. Memo No. DEEO/Misc-10/86/20836-42 dated 17.11.99. Copy to:- 1. Sri Seva Kanta Jha, S/o Laxmi Kt. Jha. Village-Maligaon, Ghy-11, 2. The Headmaster, T.R.P. Hindi M.E. School for information & necessary action. 3. The D.I. of Schools, Guwahati for information and necessary action. 4. The Treasury Officer, New Guwahati. 5. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara. 6. The A.G. Assam. 7. The Supdt. of Police, Kamrup for information. Sd/- Illegible District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup :: Ghy-7." 9. It is submitted by Mr Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that once .the petitioner is appointed by issuing appointment letter on being duly selected by the competent selection committee, 'a right has been accrued to the petitioner for such appointment and as such, this impugned order by which the appointment order has been kept in abeyance is not tenable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. To drive home this submission the followingjudicial authorities have been cited. To drive home this submission the followingjudicial authorities have been cited. (1) Purshotam Lai Dhingra-Vs-Union of India, reported in AIR 1958 SC 36 ; (2) Roshan Lal Tandon-Vs-Union of India, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1889 ; (3) Shridhar son of Ram Dular-Vs-Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC-307and; (4) Tagin Litin-Vs-State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others, reported in (1996)5 SCC-83. It is settled law that appointment to a permanent post in the public service confers a substantive right to the post and by such appointment the person so appointed acquires a status. Therefore, once a person is duly appointed to the Government post fulfilling all essential requirement, such appointment cannot be denied without assigning any reason or affording any opportunity of being heard. In Tagin Litin's case (supra) the Apex Court dealing with the position of appointment to a post, in paragraph 12, held that an appointment to a post or office postulates:- (a) a decision by the competent authority to appoint a particular person; (b) incorporation of the said decision in an order of appointment; and (c) communication of the order of appointment to the person who is being appointed. All these three requirements must be fulfilled for an appointment to be effective. In other words if these conditions are fulfilled, the appointment of a person cannot be refused without rendering any reason. In the instant case all these requirements mentioned above seem to be fulfilled. The selection of the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Chowkidar was made by the competent authority and the decision of such selection has been manifestly incorporated in the order of appointment itself and finally the said appointment order was duly communicated to the petitioner. But immediately thereafter such appointment of the petitioner was withheld that too without rendering any reason or giving any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Taking into account the entirety of the factual matrix of the case and having regard to the judicial pronouncements noted above and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is bad in law and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. An authenticated copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned Advocate General, Assam and the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Dispur for taking effective steps as indicated in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 herein above.