Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 57 (GAU)

Mira Roy v. State of Tripura

2007-01-16

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State-respondents. This writ appeal has been directed against the common judgment dated 03.08.2000 passed by learned Single Judge having heard analogously as many as five writ petitions including W.P.(C) No. 394/1999 being preferred by the two appellants herein. 2. Upon meticulous scanning of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the prayer of the appellants herein was basically for regularization of service after their initial appointments on 24.03.1991 in the post of Supervisor (ICDS), Group-C under the Directorate of Social Welfare & Social Education, Agartala, Tripura on quashment of Memo dated 31.3.1999 by which they were directed to apply for the post of Supervisor, ICDS refusing to regularize their appointments being ad-hoc one. The learned Single Judge in deciding the issue raised by the appellants found that the appellants who were working as Junior Social Education Organiser, instituted Title Suit No. 34/1987 before the Assistant District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura who dismissed the suit and the District Judge on appeal, granted reliefs to the appellants directing the authorities to give them regular appointments as Social Education Worker. 3. It was further recorded that after the said judgment when the appellants were in the regular service, the appellants along with other 17 persons were appointed on ad-hoc basis as Supervisor (ICDS) for a period of 12 months vide order dated 24.3.1991 on the basis of an order dated 6.21991 issued by the Minister of State, Education, Health & Family Welfare and Women Welfare, Tripura without following any due process of law. 4. On the basis of such ad-hoc appointments as Supervisor (ICDS) made in the year 1991 those persons including the appellants were continuing in their service though their appointments were absolutely without any authority of law. Ultimately, the writ petition preferred by the appellants as writ petitioners was dismissed by the writ court with the observation that both the appellants herein who were appointed on the basis of a judgment of the appellate court mentioned above should be allowed to continue against those posts mentioned in the judgment as they could not claim to be regularized in the post of Supervisor. 5. 5. The writ court having considered the entire aspect of the matter and also having regard to the relevant case laws cited on the point of regularization, came to the definite finding that the petitioners' case for regularization could not be considered because the entire appointments were purely on temporary basis and for a fixed period which were apparently extended from time to time. That apart, the entire appointments dehors the recruitment process prescribed under the law. 6. In a recent and significant decision, the Supreme Court in a case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. reported in (2006) AIR SCW 1991 equivalent to (2006) II LLJ 722 SC, relying on a plethora of decisions of said court including State of Haryana v. Piara Singh reported in (1993) II LLJ 937 SC equivalent to (1993) II LLJ 937 SC and Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies reported in AIR(2004) SCW 4462 equivalent to (2004) III LLJ 780 SC, has held in paragraphs 25, 33 and 34 that the adhoc or temporary appointments cannot be permitted to be regularized against the regular selection of appointment especially when such ad-hoc appointments are made without following any statutory rules. If the appointments are found to be made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointments would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State. 7. In the case in hand, it is manifestly clear that the appellants were given appointments on ad-hoc basis for a specified period initially for 12 months and subsequently the period of service was extended from time to time on 24.3.1991 and that too at the behest of the concerned Minister who by order dated 06.02.1991 directed for such appointment, of the appellants including 17 other persons. Obviously, such appointments were made without following any procedure of law so provided in the relevant recruitment rules. That being the position, we are in full agreement with the views and findings expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants. 8. Obviously, such appointments were made without following any procedure of law so provided in the relevant recruitment rules. That being the position, we are in full agreement with the views and findings expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants. 8. In view of the above established principle of law propounded in Uma Devi's (3) case (supra) and also given facts and circumstances of the case in its totality, this Court does find that the instant writ appeal' is bereft of any merit calling for interference with the impugned judgment. 9. Consequently, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.