Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 790 (GAU)

Jasmina Begum v. State of Assam

2005-11-21

I.A.ANSARI

body2005
ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By making the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for cancellation of the impugned order, dated 11.1.1999 (Annexure K to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Record Keeper on officiating basis in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam, and also for direction(s) to the State respondents to cancel the result of the Selection Test, which was held, on 17.10.1999, pursuant to the order, dated 3.11.1999, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup East Division, Guwahati. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to have been working on different occasions, on officiating basis, as Lower Division Assistant in the office of the respondent No. 2, namely, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam, temporarily. Pursuant to the advertisement published in the year, 1999, the petitioner participated in the selection process; but the result of the same was not, eventually, declared. On the other hand, respondent No. 5 has been appointed, as indicated hereinabove, as a record keeper on officiating basis. The petitioner has, therefore, as already indicated hereinabove, sought for direction(s) to the State respondents in regularize the service of the petitioner by cancelling the impugned order of appointment, dated 11.1.1999, made in favour of respondent No. 5. 3. I have heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.C. Choudhury, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5. 4. It is, now, submitted on behalf of the State respondents, that the selection process, which was initiated in 1999, could not be finalised, because of the ban imposed by the State Government. This position is not disputed before this Court by the writ petitioner. 5. In view of the fact that the selection process, which commenced in 1999, had to be stopped because of the ban on the appointments made by the Government and in view also of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court as late as on 17.2.2002, the question of directing the State respondents to finalise selection process, which was undertaken in 1999, and declaring result thereof does not arise for, a selection process once done away with cannot be resorted to on such a belated and stale claim made by the petitioner. This apart, there are neither any rules nor any scheme for regularization of the services of person(s), such as the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, no direction to regularize the service of the petitioner as, Lower Division Assistant can be given in this case. 6. Coupled with the above, the State respondents also have not been able to justify as to why they removed the petitioner and appointed respondent No. 5 as Record Keeper on officiating basis. For the appointment of the respondent No. 5 also, no rules, schemes and/or policy has been followed. The appointment of respondent No. 5 is, thus, clearly arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and, hence, the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be allowed to stand good on record. 7. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, while the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Record Keeper, on officiating basis made in terms of the impugned order, dated 11.1.1999 (Annexure K to the writ petition), is hereby set aside and quashed, the prayer for regularization of her service made by the petitioner too is hereby turned down. The appointment of respondent No. 5 shall stand cancelled accordingly with effect from today. It is, however, made clear that any selection process takes place, in future, for appointment to the post of LDA or Record Keeper, the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 shall remain entitled to participate in the same, if they are, otherwise, found eligible for such selection and appointment. If the State respondents adopt any scheme, policy and/or guidelines for regularisation of the services of person(s), such as, the petitioner, no observation made hereinabove and/or the direction(s) given herein shall be treated as a bar for the State respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation alongwith similarly situated person(s), if any, in terms of the policy, which the Government may adopt. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 9. No order as to costs.