Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 292 (GAU)

Shyamali Haldar v. State of Assam

2003-07-14

P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2003
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. In 1996 an advertisement was made for the post of LD Assistant in the office of the District Fishery Development Officer, Hailakandi,. The present Respondent No. 4, Smt. Jahanara Mazumdar, and the appellant, Smt. Shyamali Haldar, applied for appointment. Both were selected and while the Respondent No. 4, Smt. Jahanara Mazumdar, was shown at serial No. 1, the appellant, Smt. Shyamali Haldar, was shown at serial No. 2 in the merit list. Both the persons were appointed temporarily. Later on in the year 1996 itself the appellant, Smt. Shyamali Haldar was regularised in the post of LD Assistant although she was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list. This gave rise for the Respondent No. 4 to approach this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as Civil Rule No. 2088/1996. In the writ petition the Court passed the following order: "The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by regularising her to the post of which she is working on ad hoc basis. It appears that this order will not effect the Respondent No. 5." The Court had given further direction for doing so within a period of three weeks. As a result of the directions given by this Court, the case of the respondent No. 4 and the appellant was considered and the respondent No. 4 was given regular appointment. As there was only one post in which the appointment was to be given on regular basis, the appellant Was discontinued from working in the post of LD Assistant. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ petition was filed by the present appellant which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which the present appeal is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the post which was sought to be filled up is the third vacancy and as per twenty points roster of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978, every third vacancy in all the Departments has to be filled in by a candidate from Scheduled Castes and, therefore, although the appellant was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list, her case should have been considered for regular appointment to the said post, being a Scheduled Caste candidate. 3. 3. In the return filed by the respondents, it has been clarified that the instant appointment is the fourth appointment and not the third appointment to the post of LD Assistant in the office of the District Fishery Development Office, Hailakandi. The aforesaid office was newly opened in the year, 1985 and by transferring one Shri Santosh Kumar Dey, LD Assistant, from Silchar, who was later on promoted to the post of UD Assistant, filed up the first vacancy. On such promotion, the post of LD Assistant become vacant and the same was filled up by one Smt. Anjali Choudhury from OBC community. Thereafter a new post of LD Assistant has been created and one Shri Sunil Chaudra Das, Grade IV, was promoted to the said newly created post of LD Assistant. Later on the said Shri Sunil Chandra Das, LD Assistant, was promoted to the post of UD Assistant and, therefore, the present vacancy occurred. The fourth vacancy occurred is to be filled up as per the twenty points roster by a general candidate. 4. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts that the fourth vacancy cannot be filled up by appointing the appellant on the basis that she belongs to Scheduled Castes. That apart, admittedly, the appellant stood at the serial No. 2 in the merit and, therefore, has no claim to be appointed to the said post. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 3.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in CR No. 2310/1997. The appeal is dismissed.