Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 490 (GAU)

Jashubanta Sarmah v. State of Assam

2009-07-24

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The proceedings in hand evince a resolute endeavour of the Petitioners, hailing from the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon of the State, to secure appointments as Surveillance Workers and/or in Grade IV posts in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Assam. The writ petitions, in phases, project their grievances, with the progression of events, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint them to the aforementioned post on the basis of the select list dated 20.1.2006 in which they claim to be empanelled on selection or in the alternative an opportunity to participate in a fresh process treating them to be eligible therefor. The pleadings of the parties unfold the facts in the relevant dimensions and portray the rival assertions as well. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.D. Goswami, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, for the Respondents. 3. The Petitioners have pleaded that having been appointed as Surveillance Workers and Grade IV employees in the Health and Family Welfare Department (hereafter referred to as the Department) by the Joint Director of Health Services on 4.12.2000, they accordingly joined their posts. However, the Commissioner and Secretary of the Department having by his order dated 8.12.2000 cancelled their appointments, they being aggrieved, instituted several writ petitions before this Court which in due course of time were dismissed. Being dissatisfied they preferred appeals being WA 158/2002 and WA 159/2002 which were disposed of on 27.8.2003 with a direction to consider their cases for appointment against present and future vacancies in accordance with law. 4. A series of official correspondences followed thereafter in deference to the aforementioned direction of the Division Bench of this Court bearing on the steps to accord an opportunity to the Petitioners to participate in a process for consideration of their case for appointment to these posts along with similarly situated candidates. According to the Petitioners, on a proposal being placed by the Department with the Finance Department for filling up 161 posts of Surveillance Workers along with other posts, the Finance Department vide UO No. FSI 253/05 dated 28.11.2005 sanctioned the approval. According to the Petitioners, on a proposal being placed by the Department with the Finance Department for filling up 161 posts of Surveillance Workers along with other posts, the Finance Department vide UO No. FSI 253/05 dated 28.11.2005 sanctioned the approval. A process thereafter was initiated and the Petitioners were accordingly informed thereafter by the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, and they were accordingly directed to appear before a Selection Board in that connection on 20.1.2006. The Petitioners accordingly complied with the direction and the Selection Board prepared a select list in order of merit on the basis of interview that was conducted following which a select list of the same date was published in the notice board for filling up the posts of Surveillance Workers. Though the names of the Petitioners figured in the said select list, the process was not furthered thereafter and appointment orders did not follow. The State elections intervened and it was at that stage that the Petitioners nursing an apprehension of the possibility of the process being abandoned instituted WP(C) 2147/2009 and WP(C) 2149/2006 praying for a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to provide them with appointments on the basis of their selection the select list dated 20.1.2006. 5. This Court by order dated 13.4.2006 while issuing rule, in the interim, directed that during the pendency of these writ petitions, no person outside the select list dated 20.1.2006 would be appointed. The Petitioners have alleged that inspite of the said order being placed before the concerned departmental authorities followed up by a number of representations, nothing tangible was done. To the contrary the Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, issued an advertisement in the issue dated 3.2.2007 of the local daily "The Sentinel" inviting applications from intending male candidates for filling 464 posts of Surveillance Workers under the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services, Assam, mentioning inter alia the minimum educational qualification for eligibility to be H.S.S.L.C. 6. As the process initiated by the above advertisement was construed by the Petitioners to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the orders passed by this Court and mutilative of their right of appointment on the basis of their selection, they instituted WP(C) 677/2007 and WP(C) 678/2007 for the reliefs as alluded hereinabove. As the process initiated by the above advertisement was construed by the Petitioners to be opposed to the letter and spirit of the orders passed by this Court and mutilative of their right of appointment on the basis of their selection, they instituted WP(C) 677/2007 and WP(C) 678/2007 for the reliefs as alluded hereinabove. By order dated 14.3.2007 passed in these petitions, this Court though permitted the Respondents to proceed with the impugned exercise but restrained them from making appointments pursuant thereto without its leave so far as the Districts of Nagaon and Morigaon are concerned. The Petitioners contend that inspite of the above interdiction, on the completion of the process initiated by the advertisement dated 3.2.2007 appointments having been made in these districts (Nagaon 56 and Morigaon 24), they have instituted Contempt Case (C) 172/2007 and Contempt Case (C) 173/2007 which are presently pending. By order dated 15.5.2008, on relevant facts being brought on record, this Court has further restrained the State Respondents from transferring or posting persons belonging to Nagaon and Morigaon Districts but appointed as Surveillance Worker in other districts back to these Districts. 7. In this background, the State Respondents also submitted interim applications (registered as M.C. 404/2009 and M.C. 417/2009) pleading in substance that as in deference to the interim restraint vide order dated 14.3.2007 passed in WP(C) 677/2007 and WP(C) 678/2007, no appointments in the vacant posts of Surveillance Workers in the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon had been made due to inadequate number of such incumbents in these districts, malaria and vector borne disease curbing operations have suffered a serious set back detrimental to public health. By these applications, therefore, leave was sought from this Court to initiate a recruitment process to fill up 56 and 24 posts of Surveillance Workers in the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon respectively. By order dated 25.2.2009, leave as prayed for was granted with a direction that the posts be filled up by regular selection after due advertisement. The Petitioners were permitted to participate in the said process without prejudice to their rights as asserted in WP(C) 677/2007 and WP(C) 678/2007. It was clarified that if the writ petitions remained pending beyond the completion of the said exercise, the appointment orders that may be issued would clearly mention that the same would be subject to the results of the said writ petitions. 8. It was clarified that if the writ petitions remained pending beyond the completion of the said exercise, the appointment orders that may be issued would clearly mention that the same would be subject to the results of the said writ petitions. 8. It was thereafter that the Director of Health Services, Assam, published another advertisement in the issue dated 28.2.2009 of the local daily "Aji" inviting applications for filling up 124 posts of Surveillance Workers in the Department. The advertisement inter alia mentioned the minimum educational qualification to be a pass in H.S.S.L.C. and the age limit was fixed between 18 years and 31 years as on 1.1.2009. According to the Petitioners, this measure taken by the Respondents does not comport with the letter and spirit of the order dated 25.2.2009 inasmuch as the advertisement does not disclose the break up of posts more particularly, for the Districts of Nagaon and Morigaon, the concern to fill up which was responded to by this Court in permitting them to initiate a fresh process. The Petitioners have also pleaded that the upgradation of the minimum qualification to H.S.S.L.C. would disqualify most of them and that this stipulation also is antithetical to the observation contained in the order dated 25.2.2009 permitting their participation in the fresh venture. The Petitioners have thus instituted Contempt Case No. 130/2009 imputing deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by this Court in M.C. 404/ 2009 and M.C. 417/2009. 9. By an additional affidavit, the Petitioners have also brought on record the letter No. V-108/Estt./05/l 1,287 dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, initiating a process for filling up Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the department interalia mentioning the academic qualification for the post of Surveillance Worker to be H.S.L.C./equivalent examination passed. This, the Petitioners have avowed in support of their claim of having been selected in a regular process culminating in the select list dated 20.1.2006. 10. The Respondents in their counter affirmed by the Director of Health Services, Assam, while disputing the initial appointments of the Petitioners, have in the alternative pleaded that even if the said claim is accepted, their induction having been dehors the observance of the procedure prescribed by law the same cannot be construed as legal. 10. The Respondents in their counter affirmed by the Director of Health Services, Assam, while disputing the initial appointments of the Petitioners, have in the alternative pleaded that even if the said claim is accepted, their induction having been dehors the observance of the procedure prescribed by law the same cannot be construed as legal. The sanction of the Finance (S.I.U.) Department, for approval for appointment against vacant posts of Surveillance Worker and Grade-IV posts though admitted by the answering Respondents they have emphatically denied the selection said to have been held on 20.1.2006 or the preparation of a select list of the same date as claimed by the Petitioners. They have admitted that a Selection Board with the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, as the Member Secretary thereof had been constituted by the Government vide notification No. HLA.1111/2002/Pt./76 dated 23.12.2005 and that the select list furnished by the Petitioners was signed by only one Dr. K.N. Sarmah, Ex. Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, who at the relevant time was the Member Secretary of the said Selection Board. According to the answering Respondents, the select list containing only his signature could not be construed to be valid as the same was not prepared in accordance with law or the procedure prescribed. They have asserted that in absence of any direction by this Court in WA 158/2002 and WA 159/2002 to appoint the Petitioners, they have, even otherwise, no enforceable right on the basis of such illegal select list. They have, therefore, dismissed the Petitioner's claim for appointment on the basis thereof. 11. They have endorsed the move to publish the advertisement dated 3.2.2007 in public interest, there being an urgent need of recruitment to vigorously pursue the malaria eradication programme in the State. They have asserted that the upgradation in the academic qualification from H.S.L.C. to H.S.S.L.C. is pursuant to a policy decision of the Government and that the same is embodied as a condition of eligibility in the Assam Vector Borne Disease Control Programme Works Service Order, 2006, (hereafter referred to as the Order). They have asserted that the upgradation in the academic qualification from H.S.L.C. to H.S.S.L.C. is pursuant to a policy decision of the Government and that the same is embodied as a condition of eligibility in the Assam Vector Borne Disease Control Programme Works Service Order, 2006, (hereafter referred to as the Order). The answering Respondents, therefore, have contended that the relief sought for by the Petitioners by way of a writ of mandamus directing their appointment as Surveillance Worker or to any Grade-IV post on the basis of a select list dated 20.1.2006 is misconceived and that their participation in the on going selection process would be subject to their compliance of the conditions of eligibility prescribed therefor. The Petitioners in their affidavit in reply have generally reiterated and reaffirmed their averments in the writ petition. 12. Mr. Goswami has persuasively urged that the Respondents' plea against the subsistence or the validity of the select list dated 20.1.2006 is per se untenable and is in particular belied by the letter dated 20.9.2006 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, (Annexure I to the writ petition) seeking approval thereof for the purpose of appointment of Surveillance Worker in the interest of the vector borne disease control programme in the State. The learned Sr. Counsel argued that the manner in which the averments in the State counter qua the select list dated 20.1.2006 has been affirmed, renders the same unworthy of any credit and that having regard to the overwhelming materials on record justifying the selection process culminating in the said select list, an appropriate writ ought to be issued directing the Respondents to appoint the Petitioners on the basis thereof without further delay. Pointing out mat the posts of Surveillance Workers for which the Petitioners have been selected on 20.1.2006 in the District of Nagaon and Morigaon are presently lying vacant and that the process initiated by the advertisement dated 28.2.2009 is still pending, the learned Sr. Counsel has urged that the relatable vacancies being of the year 2005, the insistence for the higher academic qualification of a pass in H.S.S.L.C. therefore is obviously flawed and has the potential of meting out a hostile discrimination in the matter of public employment. 13. According to Mr. Counsel has urged that the relatable vacancies being of the year 2005, the insistence for the higher academic qualification of a pass in H.S.S.L.C. therefore is obviously flawed and has the potential of meting out a hostile discrimination in the matter of public employment. 13. According to Mr. Goswami, as admittedly the Order was not in existence at the time of the occurrence of the said vacancies, the new academic qualification cannot be applied therefore and the process to fill up the same ought to be governed by the administrative guidelines and executive instructions in force prior thereto. Mr. Goswami maintained that if in the process presently initiated, only candidates now qualified in terms of the Order are allowed to participate, it would witness exclusion of many eligible in the year 2005-06 to their great detriment and prejudice and for no fault of theirs. Moreover, this would result in enlargement of the field of competition by including those who were not qualified at that point of time on the criterion of age, qualification etc. thus denying those eligible in 2005-06, their fundamental right of equal opportunity of appointment in public office. The learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, has incidentally contended that the process visa-vis the post of Surveillance Workers in the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon more particularly in view of the litigational background ought to be confined only to those eligible during 2005 and 2006 i.e. before the enforcement of the Order on 8.1.2007. This is more so as the ongoing selection process is as per the order of this Court intending participation of the Petitioners. The following decisions were pressed into service on behalf of the Petitioners. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors. (reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99 , Krishan Yadav and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165 , Vritpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. (reported in (1994) 5 SCC 695, B.L. Gupta and Anr. v. M.C.D. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 223 , Ravi Pal and Ors. v. Krishna Devi and Ors. (reported in (2001) 10 SCC 227 and Union of India and Ors. v. N. Hargopal and Ors. (reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227 . 14. Mr. (reported in (1994) 5 SCC 695, B.L. Gupta and Anr. v. M.C.D. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 223 , Ravi Pal and Ors. v. Krishna Devi and Ors. (reported in (2001) 10 SCC 227 and Union of India and Ors. v. N. Hargopal and Ors. (reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227 . 14. Mr. Saikia in reply has endorsed the stand of the Respondents vis-a-vis the select list dated 20.1.2006 and has maintained that no direction for appointment of the Petitioners on the basis thereof ought to be made. He has contended that the authorities cited at the bar are distinguishable on facts and are of no avail to the Petitioners. Relying on a decision of this Court in Bhaben Mohan and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. (2007 (3) GLT 132, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that the Petitioners' claim for selection in a process initiated by the letter dated 17.12.2005 (Annexure X to their additional affidavit) is patently unsustainable in the teeth of the adjudication made therein. While endorsing the upgradation of the higher academic qualification for the post of Surveillance Worker to be commensurate with the nature of works appurtenant thereto, Mr. Saikia has dismissed as well the charge of deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the orders of this Court. The learned State Counsel has also produced the relevant records. 15. Mr. Goswami in reply has argued that the decision in Bhaben Mohan, supra, is of no relevance vis-a-vis the Petitioners. As the challenge therein was qua the process initiated by the letter dated 17.12.2005 unlike the Petitioners, in absence of any valid reason not to act on the select list dated 20.1.2006 which admittedly has not been cancelled as on date, the Respondents have unjustifiably refused to appoint the Petitioners on the basis thereof and as the same tantamounts to failure in the discharge of their public duty, a writ of mandamus in the interest of justice ought to be issued to secure the same. 16. The competing pleadings and the arguments project principally two issues. Firstly entitlement of the Petitioners for appointment on the basis of the select list dated 20.1.2006, which they contend, evidence of a valid selection process and secondly in the alternative, their right to participate in a fresh exercise by maintaining the conditions of eligibility prescribed or in vogue before the enforcement of the Order w.e.f. 8.1.2007. 17. Firstly entitlement of the Petitioners for appointment on the basis of the select list dated 20.1.2006, which they contend, evidence of a valid selection process and secondly in the alternative, their right to participate in a fresh exercise by maintaining the conditions of eligibility prescribed or in vogue before the enforcement of the Order w.e.f. 8.1.2007. 17. It is a matter of record that their challenge to the termination of their services having been negated by a single Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 14.3.2002 in WP(C) 353/2001 and WP(C) 318/2001, they being aggrieved had taken the assailment in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.8.2003 while disposing of WA 148/2002 and WA 159/ 2002 had issued the following directions. Considering the submission above, both the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the Appellants for appointment against present and future vacancies in accordance with the provisions of law. The decision rendered in the aforesaid two writ petitions will not be a bar in considering the case of the Appellants for appointment as indicated above. 18. The text of the order would reveal that the mode of disposal of the appeals as above, was decisively patterned on a submission made on behalf of the Appellants to the same effect. Visibly the direction was for consideration of the cases of the Appellants in accordance with law against the then existing as well as future vacancies. Though the official correspondences annexed to the writ petitions evidence that preliminary steps had been taken thereafter in deference to the above order in the appeals, those manifestly demonstrate the contemplation of the concerned departmental authorities to conduct the process in accordance with the provisions of law as well as the existing procedure to be followed for such appointments. The letter No. V-108/ Estt./05/l1, 287 dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M) (Annexure X to the additional affidavit filed by the writ Petitioners in WP(C) 677/2007) embodies certain conditions of eligibility which amongst others disclose that the minimum academic qualification of a candidate for the post of Surveillance Worker had then been prescribed to be H.S.L.C./Equivalent Examination passed. The letter addressed to the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, soliciting names of the candidates who had registered themselves in the employment exchanges at the ratio of 1:20 (i.e. 20 candidates against 1 posts). Other relevant particulars relatable to the proposed process were also furnished therein. The District Employment of the respective Employment Exchanges were thereby requested to direct the sponsored candidates to appear before the Interview Board as per the programme annexed thereto in the office of the Director of Health Services, Assam. 19. The parties are not at issue that prior to the Order, which was brought into, force w.e.f. 8.1.2007 there did not exist a set of Rules stipulating the conditions of eligibility and the procedure to administer the exercise for such appointment. The modalities referred to in the letter dated 17.12.2005 could at best thus be construed as guidelines therefor. Though the Petitioners assert that pursuant to the above, their names were duly forwarded and after the interview as per the schedule in which they had participated, they along with others had been selected and as a select list dated 20.1.2006 had been drawn up, the State Respondents though have dithered on the aspect of actual conduct of the selection process have, however, persistently denied the validity of the said list for making appointments therefrom. 20. According to them, by a notification No. HLA.1111/2002/Pt./76 dated 23.12.2005, a Selection Committee had been constituted for filling up the vacant posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV with the following members. 1 The Director of Health Services, Assam Chairman 2 The Joint Director of Health Services (Malaria), Assam Member Secretary 3 One representative from Health and Family Welfare Department not below the rank of Deputy Secretary (Sri D.Malakar, A.C.S., Health and Family Welfare Department. Member 4 One representative from Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Director. Member 5 One representative from WPT and BC Department not below the rank of Secretary Member 21. Not only have they endeavoured to deny the factum of interview or the sitting of the Selection Committee on 20.1.2006, they have dismissed the said list as invalid as not being prepared in accordance with law or procedure. They, however, admitted that the list was signed only by one Dr. K. N. Sharma, Ex. Not only have they endeavoured to deny the factum of interview or the sitting of the Selection Committee on 20.1.2006, they have dismissed the said list as invalid as not being prepared in accordance with law or procedure. They, however, admitted that the list was signed only by one Dr. K. N. Sharma, Ex. Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, who at the relevant time was the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee and had since retired from service on and from 31.1.2006. The Petitioners as such have not denied that the select list contains only the signature of the Member Secretary of the Selection Board. Except the letter dated 17.12.2005 and some intra official missives there is no other material to convincingly demonstrate that a process of selection as contemplated in law had in fact been undertaken to culminate in a valid select list to dispense appointments therefrom. The select list dated 20.1.2006 containing only the signature of the Member Secretary of the Selection Board, does not unequivocally substantiate that a legally cognizable process of selection had been undertaken so much so that the Petitioners have a legitimate expectation to have their cases considered for appointment therefrom in order of merit. The Committee/Board having been constituted to conduct the process, the select list dated 20.1.2006 signed only by its Member Secretary does not inspire the confidence of this Court to direct appointment of the Petitioners therefrom. Though great emphasis has been laid on their behalf on the letter dated 20.9.2006 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, i.e. the successor in office of the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee who had signed the said select list, the same ipso facto does not assign the required validity thereto to justify a direction to appoint the Petitioners on the basis thereof. This letter at the most affirms the existence of the said list but not the legality thereof deserving enforcement. The Petitioners' plea for a writ for their appointment therefrom thus cannot be upheld. A scrutiny of the official records produced on behalf of the State Respondents does not reveal anything inconsistent with their pleadings. 22. This letter at the most affirms the existence of the said list but not the legality thereof deserving enforcement. The Petitioners' plea for a writ for their appointment therefrom thus cannot be upheld. A scrutiny of the official records produced on behalf of the State Respondents does not reveal anything inconsistent with their pleadings. 22. Though it is not obvious that a selection process initiated on the basis of the letter dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services as involved in Bhaben Mohan, supra, is the same as claimed by the Petitioners, it is manifest from the decision rendered therein that the post of Surveillance Worker under the Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, Government of Assam, was also involved in the exercise. Whereas most of the Petitioners though categorised in different groups had assailed the advertisement dated 29.9.2006 for filling up the aforementioned posts along with others as mentioned therein and sought completion of the venture flagged off by the letter dated 17.12.2005, a Single Bench of this Court on a scrutiny of the official records sustained the plea of the Respondent State that the displaced process had been rightly cancelled being vitiated by several illegalities including breach of the parameters lodged in the aforementioned letter. No reference of the select list dated 20.1.2006 is, however, discernible in the verdict. Certain operative directions were issued to be complied with by the State Respondents before proceeding further with the process of selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.9.2006. This decision as such having regard to the contextual facts thus is not decisive either way. 23. The advertisement dated 3.2.2007, subject matter of challenge in WP(C) 677/ 2007 and WP(C) 678/2007 which refer to 464 posts of Surveillance Worker under the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services, Assam, thus unmistakably efface any pending process relatable thereto. In terms of the Order enforced w.e.f. 8.1.2007, the minimum academic qualification of a candidate for direct recruitment to these posts has been mentioned as H.S.S.L.C. The Order which appears to be a precursor of the Service Rules to be framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India seeks to regulate the conditions of recruitment and the conditions of the service of the persons appointed as the Para-Medical and Non-Gazetted Staff in the above establishment for implementation of National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme in Assam. Thereunder induction to all the cadres of the service referred to therein is to be made by direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Clause 6 thereof. The District Selection Board defined in Clause 2(b) is entrusted with the task of making the selection on the basis of the academic record of candidates and performances in the interview. In the event of the failure of the Board to recommend sufficient number of candidates, it is to repeat the procedure. The other conditions of eligibility have also been adequately ordained so much so that the Order vis-a-vis the modalities of recruitment and conditions of service for the posts contemplated is a self-contained instrument of law. 24. Noticeably the Petitioners have not impugned the validity or enforceability of this Order on and from 8.1.2007. The essentiality of the academic qualification of H.S.S.L.C. in the advertisement dated 3.2.2007 being visibly in compliance of the Order, it cannot be repudiated as dehors the sanction of law in absence of any assailment of such an imperative prescription on the minimum academic qualification which is a shade higher than H.S.L.C. It is thus inessential to dilate on the Respondents' justification therefore to be based on a policy decision by the State Cabinet on an indepth evaluation of job requirement and service exigencies. Admittedly, prior to the formulation of the Order, no Service Rule existed, codifying the criteria of such recruitment and only a guideline conveyed by the letter dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services used to be resorted to for the purpose. The background of the Order, as is available in the State counter, indicates that Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers play a cardinal role in the malaria eradication programme so much so that the success thereof to a great extent depends on the quality of the services they render. They are construed to be key persons at the grass root level and have also to carry out IEC programme besides maintaining village wise population registers. They are entrusted with the duty to collect blood slides of fever cases. They are construed to be key persons at the grass root level and have also to carry out IEC programme besides maintaining village wise population registers. They are entrusted with the duty to collect blood slides of fever cases. On an analysis of the nature of the works to be performed by these staff, the Director of Health Services while modelling the draft Service Rule for Surveillance Worker/Basic Health Worker had suggested that the minimum basic qualification for the post(s) ought to be H.S.S.L.C. in the Science Stream with Biology or equivalent examination. After eliciting informations from various departments as was considered relevant, the Government in its Cabinet Meeting held on 14.12.2006 approved the Order whereby the minimum academic qualification was fixed at H.S.S.L.C. The progression of events appertaining to the evolution of the Order as narrated in the affidavit of the State Respondents, correctness or otherwise of which as such has not been refuted by the Petitioners thus evince a conscious decision of the Government to upgrade the minimum academic qualification from H.S.L.C. to H.S.S.L.C. 25. The pleadings of the parties as well as the orders passed from time to time reveal that though meanwhile the process initiated by the advertisement dated 3.2.2007 had been completed, the posts earmarked therein for the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon, as claimed/represented by the Respondents, were not filled up thereby. According to them, the present process launched by the advertisement dated 28.2.2009 for 124 posts of Surveillance Workers include such posts (Nagaon 56+Morigaon 24). Admittedly this process is pending as on date. 26. On interim applications (registered as M.C. 404/2009 and M.C. 407/2009) by the Director of Health Services, Assam, contending that as in compliance of the interim orders passed in WP(C) 677/2007 and WP(C) 678/07, posts advertised on 3.2.2007 and ear marked for the Nagaon and Morigaon districts were not filled up, the anti malaria works had been seriously affected therein endangering public health, this Court by order dated 25.2.2009 permitted the State Respondents to fill up 85 vacant posts of Surveillance Workers in those two districts leaving the Petitioners at liberty to participate in the selection process without prejudice to their rights as involved in the aforementioned two writ petitions. The appointments, if any, were, however, made subject to the final orders in these proceedings. The appointments, if any, were, however, made subject to the final orders in these proceedings. Though meanwhile the Order had come into force, noticeably, this Court, while permitting the participation of the Petitioners did not provide for any relaxation of the minimum academic qualification stipulated. 27. In absence of any challenge to the Order which per se supersedes the norms embodied in the letter dated 17.12.2005, the Petitioners' plea for being allowed to participate in a process informed with the conditions of eligibility as existed in the year 2005, therefore, needs scrutiny. The prerogative and the dominion of the State Government to determine the criteria of eligibility for recruitment to public office is indubitable. It is supposed to be the best judge and assessor of the modalities best suited for the posts and the exigencies of service relatable thereto. A Court of law, ought not to impose itself on this preserved privilege of the State Government recognised by law unless the impugned precepts bearing on the eligibility for such appointment are per se impertinent, absurd and subversive of public interest. Having regard to the posts involved, variety of duties to be performed by the incumbents thereof and the mission in hand, the enhancement in the academic qualification as the materials on record disclose has been impelled by the realisation of the demand therefore in the essentialities of service. As the malaria eradication programme as well as the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme are strategic projects geared to serve public interest, insistence on the earlier academic qualification of H.S.L.C. to induct persons equipped therewith, merely on the ground that the vacancies for the two districts of Nagaon and Morigaon are of the year 2005, in the opinion of this Court, would be a retrograde step undermining the solemn pledge to foster public health. The posts involved being lodged in public office, equality of opportunity thereto would have to be measured on the touchstone prescribed and uniformly applied for recruitment thereto and no unequal treatment on the basis thereof is permissible under the Constitution. Such a situation, however, does not obtain in the present case. The posts involved being lodged in public office, equality of opportunity thereto would have to be measured on the touchstone prescribed and uniformly applied for recruitment thereto and no unequal treatment on the basis thereof is permissible under the Constitution. Such a situation, however, does not obtain in the present case. Though considering the factual background of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, the Respondents ought to have been adequately vigilant and expeditious in their steps to hasten up the process for the consideration of the Petitioners for appointment to the post that Surveillance Workers, their omissions and lapses in this regard, cannot per se outweigh the significance of public interest which seemingly vindicates the enhancement of the basic educational qualification as one of the conditions of eligibility for induction thereto. 28. The renderings in Pritpal Singh, supra, Krishan Yadav, supra, and Ravi Pal, supra, are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as therein the selections had been quashed at the instance of unsuccessful participating candidates having being found to be vitiated by incurable illegalities subversive of the basic tenets of transparency and fairness in State action. In none of these cases, an intervening development of fresh condition of eligibility had figured and no plea on the basis thereof also was taken. Though candidates who had taken part in the selections were allowed to apply afresh, no bar except in Ravi Pal, supra, for the participation of fresh candidates was recorded. In all these decisions in essence, the earlier process was restored enbloc to be conducted afresh. Further no proposition of law of general application was laid down therein mandating that in situations of the kind encountered therein, the fresh exercise ought to be limited only to the candidates who had participated in the earlier venture thus implicitly sustaining the conditions of eligibility prescribed at the time of initiation of the earlier process. 29. In the case in hand, the exercise in which the Petitioners' claim to have participated has been forsaken and no appointment on the basis thereof has been made. The State Respondents have specifically denied the validity of the select list It is an eventuality of abandonment of the selection process by the State machinery on the ground of vitiation by illegalities and not of cancellation thereof on adjudication by Court with a direction to redeem the same as a whole in the same attire. The State Respondents have specifically denied the validity of the select list It is an eventuality of abandonment of the selection process by the State machinery on the ground of vitiation by illegalities and not of cancellation thereof on adjudication by Court with a direction to redeem the same as a whole in the same attire. The authorities cited at the Bar in this regard, therefore, are of no avail to the Petitioners. 30. The decision in B.L. Gupta, supra, though underscores the plea that the vacancies ought to be filled up in accordance with the Rules then in force and not on the basis of the amendments thereto, it does not clinch the issue in favour of the Petitioners in the facts of the instant case inasmuch as no statutory rule had existed in the year 2005 making it obligatory for the State Respondents to inflexibly adhere to the conditions of eligibility embodied in the letter dated 17.12.2005. In absence of any statutory rule, no legal obligation was cast on the Respondents to act in terms thereof and to conform to its ordainments to fill up the vacancies arising in the year 2005. No enforceable right of the Petitioners on the basis of the letter dated 17.12.2005 compelling the Respondents to fill up the said vacancies on the basis of the norms of eligibility contained therein can thus be countenanced. As a matter of fact, their Lordships in B.L. Gupta, supra, had noticed this aspect and did not propound the extension of the principle to situations not governed by statutory rules. 31. Having regard to the process undertaken and the factors acted upon to design the Order which amply demonstrates a conscious and insightful perspective of the State Government vis-a-vis the academic qualification of the incumbent for the post of Surveillance Worker, this Court is not inclined to accede to the Petitioners' request for moderating the conditions of eligibility to those prevalent in the year 2005-06 so as to enable those equipped with the earlier academic qualification and norms of eligibility to participate in a fresh process for the posts earmarked for the districts of Nagoan and Morigaon. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the right of the Petitioners is to be considered for appointment to the post of Surveillance Workers in accordance with law as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 158/2002 and WA 159/2002 which verily signify that it ought to be so in consonance with the procedure in vogue, the alterations in the criteria of eligibility as heralded by the Order in public interest do not impinge on their right emanating from the aforesaid order. 32. In the face of the determinations as above, in the comprehension of this Court, the petitions lack in substance. These are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed