Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 839 (GAU)

Arifa Begum v. State of Assam

2009-11-27

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. According to the petitioner, she has been placed under suspension on extraneous consideration and not for any valid reason. 2. The petitioner who is presently serving as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO - for short), Udali, ICDS Project at Udali, Lanka, in the district of Nagaon (now under suspension) was first appointed as Supervisor in the year 1982 (21.11.1982). She was promoted as CDPO on 20.1.2006 and posted at Lahorighat. The petitioner was transferred to the present place of posting i.e. Udali ICDS Project on 13.6.2008 and since then has been serving there. 3. On 10.9.2009, an advertisement was issued inviting applications from intending candidates to serve as Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers. The advertisement was preceded by the letter dated 27.7.2009 issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e.. The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department to the respondent No. 7 i.e. the Accountant General (A and E), Assam, whereby the sanction of 501 numbers of Supervisors and also acceptance of voluntary services of 12524 Anganwadi Workers and 12524 Anganwadi Helpers for 12524 numbers of additional Anganwadi Centres and another 2967 numbers of Anganwadi Workers for 2967 Mini Anganwadi Centres by the Govt. of Assam, was conveyed. Be it stated here that by notification dated 31.8.2007, the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department, notified the eligibility norms and guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in the State of Assam. 4. By yet another notification dated 21.8.2009, issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3 i.e., the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department, a list of Social Workers against each ICDS Project to act as members of the Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under the ICDS Projects of the State was published. In the said list, one Shri Abdul Mannan, a social activist was nominated to act as member of the Selection Committee constituted for the Udali ICDS Project. 5. By Annexure-II notification/corrigendum dated 25.8.2009, it was notified that the whole process of interview and selection including the preparation of the final list of workers and helpers would be by 30.9.2009. In the said list, one Shri Abdul Mannan, a social activist was nominated to act as member of the Selection Committee constituted for the Udali ICDS Project. 5. By Annexure-II notification/corrigendum dated 25.8.2009, it was notified that the whole process of interview and selection including the preparation of the final list of workers and helpers would be by 30.9.2009. Thereafter, vide Annexure-III letter dated 27.8.2009 the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Director of Social Welfare notified the CDPOs of the State that the dates for publication of select list had been fixed as 7.10.2009 and 8.10.2009. It was also notified that the selected candidates should join their services on 14/15th October, 2009. 6. After the aforesaid developments, the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department, issued the Annexure-V notification dated 19.9.2009 in supercession of all earlier notifications issued by the Social Welfare Department in connection with the constitution of the Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. The new committee constituted for the purpose, was as follows: (i) Circle Officer-Chairman (ii) CDPO-Member-Secretary. (iii) Medical and Health Officer- Member. (iv) Two Social Workers- (to be nominated by MSW Members)- Member. Be it stated here that in the notification, the procedure for selection for Anganwadi Workers and Helpers was also indicated. 7. The petitioner being the CDPO of ICDS Project, Udali, was the Member-Secretary of the Selection Committee. The selection was conducted by the committee constituted in the ICDS Project and it is the stand of the petitioner that the selection so conducted was as per the guidelines notified by the Government and that all the decisions of the Selection Committee in connection with the interview and selection and the preparation of the merit list were on the basis of unanimous resolutions taken in the meetings of the Selection Committee. 8. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 10, namely Md. Rafiqul Islam Laskar, who is the President of the Udali Block Congress, tried his best to provide appointments to some of the candidates of his liking as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in the Udali ICDS Project but being unsuccessful, he made some false and baseless allegations against the petitioner. Rafiqul Islam Laskar, who is the President of the Udali Block Congress, tried his best to provide appointments to some of the candidates of his liking as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in the Udali ICDS Project but being unsuccessful, he made some false and baseless allegations against the petitioner. It has further been stated that the said respondent No. 10 even had gone to the extent of focusing the false and baseless allegations against the petitioner through a local TV News Channel. 9. It is on record that the said respondent No. 10 by his Annexure-VI letter dated 25.9.2009 requested the Minister, Social Welfare, for appointment of the persons named in the letter. The persons so named were stated to be Congress workers. Be it stated here that the letter was addressed in the letter pad of Udali Block Congress Committee. The English version of the letter written in Assamese is quoted below: OFFICE OF THE UDALI BLOCK CONGRESS COMMITTEE P.O. : Tiniali Bazar, P.S.-Lanka Dist.-Nagaon (Assam) PIN-782446 President Md. Rafiqul Islam 94351 68722 To General Secretary Md. Sheikh Abdulah 94352 51069 Sub : Application for appointment for the post of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. Sir, Respectfully beg to inform you that the below mentioned persons are Congress workers,, therefore from this block Congress it is prayed that kindly give appointment to the below mentioned poor below poverty line persons for the post of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. 10. On receipt of the said letter, the respondent No. 10 i.e. the Private Secretary of the Minister, Social Welfare by his Annexure-VII letter dated 1.10.2009 while forwarding the letter to the petitioner, conveyed the desire of the Minister, Social Welfare and Jail for necessary action in the matter of appointment of the candidates named in the enclosed list. The said letter is quoted below: No MSW/25/AW/2009 Child Development Project Officer Udali ICDS Project, Nagaon. As desired, I am forwarding herewith a list of candidates submitted to the Hon'ble Minister, 'Social Welfare and Jail by President, Nagaon District Youth Congress, praying for the post of Angangwadi Workers and Helpers in respective centres under your project. You are requested to take necessary action on the matter as desired. Sd/-1.10 Private Secretary to Minister Social Welfare and Jail (Seal) Enclo : As above 11. The said PS. You are requested to take necessary action on the matter as desired. Sd/-1.10 Private Secretary to Minister Social Welfare and Jail (Seal) Enclo : As above 11. The said PS. to the Minister i.e. the respondent No. 10, also by his Annexure-VIII letter dated 29.9.2009 addressed to the petitioner expressed similar desire of the Minister for appointment of the candidates named in the letter. The letter is quoted below: NO MSW/25/AW/2009/37 Dated the 29th Sept' 09 C.D.P.O., Udali ICDS Project Nagaon As desired, I am forwarding herewith a joint prayer petition submitted to Minister, Social Welfare and Jails by Mst. Saribul Nessa and Mst. Rashida Begum, Dakhin Udali, Nagaon, praying for selection and appointment as Anganwadi Worker and Helper in No. 33 Dakhin Udali Hussainia L.P School Anganwadi Centre under your project. You are requested to take necessary action on the matter as desired. Sd/-29.9.2007 Private Secretary to Minister Social Welfare and Jail (Seal). Enclo : As above. 12. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that although the respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 i.e. the Minister, Social Welfare, Assam; the Private Secretary to the Minister, Social Welfare and President, Udali Block Congress were not members of the Selection Committee but all along tried to interfere with the functioning of the selection committee. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that she did not yield to such political pressure mounted on her. It is the further stand of the petitioner that because of her such conduct, she attracted wrath of the Minister, Social Welfare. 13. It is on record that the respondent No. 10 had even filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4345/2009 (copy enclosed as Annexure-IX), praying for setting aside and quashing of the selection already conducted. In the writ petition, it was the stand of the respondent No. 10 that his name was forwarded for being nominated as member of the Selection Committee but was not included. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that there was no allegation against the petitioner and only ground urged towards assailing the selection was that the selection committee was not properly constituted and that he being a social worker and also the President of Udali Block Congress had a legal right to become a member of the Selection Committee and also to challenge the entire selection. Be it stated here that no effective order was passed in the writ petition. 14. The aforesaid selection was conducted by the Selection Committee and the committee in its meeting held on 3.10.2009 adopted the resolution (Resolution No. 3) to publish the select list on 7.10.2009 as per the stipulation made in the aforesaid Annexure-III notification dated 7.8.2009. After adoption of such resolution and due authorisation of the petitioner to publish the select list, the select list was published and the same was sent to the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, by letter dated 7.10.2009. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is the categorical statement of the petitioner that the candidates recommended by the respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 did not qualify in the selection held by the Selection Committee. 15. The Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department by its W.T. Message dated 12.10.2009 issued to all the CDPOs in the State stayed the appointment of selected Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. The petitioner also received the W.T. Message on 12.10.2009. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that since the petitioner did not act on the recommendation made by the respondents No. 8 and 10, a proposal was mooted to take action against her on the basis of some false allegation of purported anomalies in the selection process. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure-X), the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending drawal of departmental proceeding as per the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. By the same order, the District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon was directed to take over the additional charge of CDPO. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 16. It is the stand of the petitioner that the entire selection process having been carried out by the duly constituted Selection Committee, there was no occasion for her to act in the individual capacity and/or to create any anomaly in the selection process. According to the petitioner the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 is the outcome of the wrath she had attracted by not complying with the aforesaid recommendations made by the respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 for appointments of the candidates of their choice. 17. According to the petitioner the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 is the outcome of the wrath she had attracted by not complying with the aforesaid recommendations made by the respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 for appointments of the candidates of their choice. 17. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 21.10.2009 and a direction was issued to place the relevant records for perusal of the Court. The matter was heard again on 3.11.2009 in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. On perusal of the relevant file bearing No. RE 72/09, it was found that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2009 solely on the basis of the note vide No. MSW 1/SW/09/91, dated 16.10.2009, endorsed to the Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department by the Minister, Social Welfare. The note reads as under: Commissioner and Secretary, SWD You are aware that Nos. of complaints have been received regarding selection of AWWs and AWHs in Udali project under Nagaon District. Yesterday (15.10.2009) in the evening it has come to my notice through electronic media (NE TV) that the President of the Utali Block Congress alleged before the media persons about the rampant corruption by the CDPO Udali and Circle Officer concerned in the name of selection of AWWs and AWHs. Further the President of the said Block Congress Committee also alleged before the media persons that the CDPO Udali has collected huge amount of money from the candidates of AWWs and AWHs in the name of Minister, Social Welfare, Assam. The above news published in the electronic media yesterday has maligned my image before the public. In view of the above the CDPO Udali should be immediately placed Under suspension. Issue notification accordingly. 18. Noticing the conflicting stand of the parties and when it was found that no action was taken against the Private Secretary to the Minister, "Social Welfare (Respondent No. 9) for pressurising the petitioner to give appointments as per the enclosed list, direction was issued to file individual affidavits by all the private respondents. Issue notification accordingly. 18. Noticing the conflicting stand of the parties and when it was found that no action was taken against the Private Secretary to the Minister, "Social Welfare (Respondent No. 9) for pressurising the petitioner to give appointments as per the enclosed list, direction was issued to file individual affidavits by all the private respondents. It was also ordered that in the affidavit to be filled by the Commissioner and Secretary, it should be highlighted as to whether he had made any cross verification in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner by the aforesaid note of the respondent No. 8 towards instantaneous passing of the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 or had issued the same solely on the basis of note furnished by the Minister. Direction was also issued to the Minister to file affidavit as to what action he would take against the Private Secretary attached to him and the president of the Block Congress Committee, Udali for mounting pressure on the petitioner for illegal appointment. 19. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 3.11.2009, the respondent No. 1, 8 and 9 have filed affidavits. Although, a prayer was made on 3.11.2009 on behalf of the respondent No. 10 to grant time to file affidavit and the same was allowed but the said respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit denying the contentions raised against him. 20. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 9, the Private Secretary to the Minister, it is his stand that as per the standing instruction received from the Minister, he had forwarded the aforesaid two letters to the petitioner and that the same was the bona fide act in the course of discharging the assigned duties. Further stand taken is that the public petitions and representations are sent to the concerned functionaries/officials to take necessary action as per law and should not be understood as direction to act on those applications/representations in violation of rules. For a ready reference, the aforesaid plea raised in para 2 of the affidavit is quoted below: 2. That the allegations made in Paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied and beg to state that I would like to state that Respondent No. 9 looks after the correspondence of the office of the Hon'ble Minister, Social Welfare, Assam on his behalf and as per his instructions. That the allegations made in Paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied and beg to state that I would like to state that Respondent No. 9 looks after the correspondence of the office of the Hon'ble Minister, Social Welfare, Assam on his behalf and as per his instructions. In this instant case it is stated that as per standing instructions received from the Hon'ble Minister, the respondent No. 9 had forwarded the impugned letter to the petitioner who is the concerned Authority to deal with the matter. It is further stated that this was the bona fide act in the course of discharging the assigned duties entrusted to Respondent No. 9. The public petition and the representations are sent to concerned functionaries/offices to take necessary action as per law and not to be understood to act on those applications/representations in violation of rules. The petitioner being and experienced public servant is aware of such discharge of public duties and ought not have impute allegations as has been done in the petition. (Emphasis supplied) 21. The respondent No. 8 i.e. the Minister in his affidavit has taken the same as that of the respondent No. 9. According to him, his office including the Private Secretary forwards the petitions to concerned functionaries/officers for taking necessary action. It is the further stand that as per standing instruction, the petitions in question were forwarded by the private secretary as a routine duty and that such petitions are to be entertained as per rules. In this connection, the particular statement made in paragraph 2 is reproduced below: 2. That, the allegations made in Paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied and beg to state that as representative of public, I use to receive petitions from public/citizens and other forms etc. My office including the Private Secretary forward the petitions to concern functionaries/officers for taking necessary action. In the instant case as per standing instruction, the petitions were forwarded by the Private Secretary as a routine duty. It is stated that the act of forwarding the public petition from my office to different functionaries/offices including that of the petitioner are meant for taking action as per rules and not to act on them in violation of rules. I have never put any pressure on the petitioner in the process of selection of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) as alleged by the petitioner. I have never put any pressure on the petitioner in the process of selection of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner as the Member-Secretary of the Selection Committee of the concerned ICDS Project along with other members of the Selection Committee are at liberty to select AWWs and AWHs on merit and as per guidelines issued by the Government. The act of forwarding the petitions/representations filed by the 2 (two) applicants and one by the President, Nagaon District Youth Congress, to the petitioners office is a routine dispatch of public petitions to the concerned functionary. Therefore, action against the Private Secretary has not been contemplated at this state. (Emphasis supplied) 22. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 8 has stated about publication of telephone number for the convenience of general public to lodge complaints in case of any irregularity in the selection. The respondent No. 8 has also stated about the transparency in the process of selection and receipt of complaints against the petitioner. 23. The Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, in his affidavit has stated about large number of complaints (verbal) as well as written complaints received in respect of the selection process of Udali ICDS Project. According to this respondent, the petitioner hurriedly published the select list on 8.10.2009. This respondent has also referred to an earlier incident not connected with the present case. In the counter-affidavit, the further stand of the respondent is that the petitioner ignored the instruction conveyed vide WT Message dated 9.10.2009 and 12.10.2009. 24. The documents annexed to the counter-affidavit make interesting reading. The only complaint lodged was on 6.10.2009 by the respondent No. 10 and none else. The W.T. Messages enclosed to the counter-affidavit were meant for all concerned including the petitioner and by the same the constitution of the Monitoring Cell by the Govt. was conveyed. It was also conveyed that in case of any anomaly, same should be intimated through telephone in the numbers indicated in the message. An undated appeal to the public addressed by the respondent No. 8 has also been annexed, by which an appeal was made to the public to bring it to the notice of the Government in case of any illegal acts regarding appointment. It was stated that the Government was bound to act as per the Govt. An undated appeal to the public addressed by the respondent No. 8 has also been annexed, by which an appeal was made to the public to bring it to the notice of the Government in case of any illegal acts regarding appointment. It was stated that the Government was bound to act as per the Govt. rules and regulations adopting fair means in the matter of appointment. 25. Annexure-II is the W.T. Message dated 9.10.2009 by which direction was issued not to publish the final select list. Yet another W.T. Message dated 15.10.2009 was also issued directing the CDPOs to keep the select list withheld till further instruction from the Government. Annexure-III is the office order dated 15.10.2009 by which an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations made against the selection committee constituted for Udali ICDS Project. The enquiry committee was to make on the spot enquiry into the allegations to ascertain the facts of allegations. The committee was a submit its report within 10 (ten) days from the date of issuance of the order. Before the Committee could take any follow up action in the matter, same was reconstituted by Annexure-IV order dated 5.11.2009 i.e. after the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 16.10.2009. 26. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.C., Buragohain, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. G. Soren, learned State Counsel, Assam, representing the official as well as the respondents No. 8 and 9. Mr. P. Sarma, learned Counsel who had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 10 and prayed for time on 3.11.2009 to file counter-affidavit, neither filed such affidavit, nor appeared during the course of hearing. I have also gone through the entire records produced by Mr. G. Soren, learned State counsel. My findings and conclusions are recorded below. 27. Although, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 and 8, they have stated about purported complaints against the petitioner, both verbal and written but except the written complaint dated 6.10.2009 lodged by the respondent No. 10 who had mounted pressure on the petitioner for appointment of the candidates of his choice by his aforesaid Annexure-VI letter dated 25.9.2009, the records do not indicate any other complaints against the petitioner. It is on record that the said respondent No. 10 had filed WP(C) No. 4345/2009 in October, 2009 aspiring to become a member of the Selection Committee and in the writ petition, there was no allegation against the petitioner. 28. As recorded in the order dated 3.11.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension solely on the basis of the note furnished by the Minister, Social Welfare Department on 16.10.2009 to the Commissioner and Secretary, SWD. The note clearly reveals that it was the respondent No. 10 who had lodged complaint against the petitioner. Although, in the affidavit filed by the Minister and the Commissioner and Secretary, they have stated about large number of complaints, both oral and written, but the only complaint find mention in the note dated 16.10.2009 is the one submitted by the respondent No. 10. The Commissioner and Secretary, without any cross verification of the veracity or otherwise of the said complaint simply complied with the direction of the Minister unmindful of his duties and function required to be carried out in such matters concerning the service career of a Govt. officer. 29. The whole design of the respondent No. 10 in the matter of selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers will have to be judged from his above quoted letter dated 25.9.2009, by which he had requested the Minister to give appointment to the persons named in the letter. On receipt of the letter, the Private Secretary to the Minister forwarded the letter to the petitioner clearly indicating that the same was as per the desire of the Minister and that the prayer was made by the respondent No. 10 for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. The said Private Secretary also forwarded the other letter dated 29.9.2009 also quoted above, to the petitioner for appointment of the persons named in the letter. 30. The above action on the part of the respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 has been tried to be justified as routine affair and bona fide act in the course of discharging the assigned duties. This particular stand of the respondents No. 8 and 9 have been noted above. 31. According to the respondent No. 8, the aforesaid recommendations were made as a routine duty. This particular stand of the respondents No. 8 and 9 have been noted above. 31. According to the respondent No. 8, the aforesaid recommendations were made as a routine duty. In the particular appeal made by him, copy of which has been annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, it was appealed that the officers and staff of the department should not indulge in any illegal act regarding appointment and that if any Govt. Officer or staff is found involved in such illegal thing, departmental action would be taken against them. It was also observed that the Govt. was bound to act as per Govt. rules in the matter of appointment. If that be so, it is not conceivable as to how the same very Minister could forward through his Private Secretary the particular requests made by the respondent No. 10 for appointment of persons of his choice. Is it the transparency and fair play in the matter of selection about which much was emphasised by the Minister in his public appeal? Certainly not. He himself acted in derogation of the appeal and made a mockery of the same. 32. As indicated above, the Annexure-III letter dated 27.8.2009 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare clearly stipulating the action/guidelines in respect of the selection. As per the said letter, the select list was to be finalised and published on 7-8th October, 2009 and offer of appointment was to be issued on 9.10.2009. The petitioner exactly did the same when she published the select list on 7.10.2009. It was only on 9.10.2009, the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department issued direction not to declare the final select list till further communication from the Government. This WT. Message having been issued on 9.10.2009, the petitioner could not have conceived of such a restraint order on 7.10.2009, on which date, as per the authorisation made to her by the Selection Committee, she had published the select list. However, the respondent No. 1 has published the select list. However, the respondent No. 1 has found fault with her in publishing the select list as is revealed from the records. However, the respondent No. 1 has published the select list. However, the respondent No. 1 has found fault with her in publishing the select list as is revealed from the records. In his note dated 13.10.2009, the respondent No. 1, apart from mentioning about the particular complaint lodged by the respondent No. 10, also found fault with the petitioner in publishing the select list which as per his note was defying the Government order. Such a stand of defiance is certainly not based on records, rather shows the defiance of the respondent No. 1 in placing distorted facts. 33. In his affidavit, there is no mention as to whether he had made any cross verification of the veracity or otherwise of the allegation made against the petitioner by the Respondent No. 8 in his aforesaid note endorsed to him. It is precisely the reason as to why this Court by order dated 3.11.2009 noticing the particular note of the Minister, directing the respondent No. 1 to place the petitioner under suspension, issued direction to clarify as to whether the respondent No. 1 had placed the petitioner under suspension solely on the basis of the said note mortgaging his conscience to the Minister or had made any cross-verification to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations which in the normal course is the expected functions of such an officer occupying high position in the Department. The affidavit filed by him does not indicate anything about the same. 34. Needless to say that having regard to the serious repercussion which are followed pursuant to placing an officer/employee under suspension, an order of suspension is not to be passed lightly. Needless also to say that an order of suspension can only be made after the authority comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient reasons for keeping him or her under suspension. In other words, there has to be a proper application of mind and satisfaction that suspension is called for in the given case. 35. In the instant case, the order of suspension assailed in this proceeding was preceded by the request made by the respondent No. 8 through his Private Secretary i.e. respondent No. 9 for appointment of the persons named in the list submitted by the respondent No. 10. 35. In the instant case, the order of suspension assailed in this proceeding was preceded by the request made by the respondent No. 8 through his Private Secretary i.e. respondent No. 9 for appointment of the persons named in the list submitted by the respondent No. 10. The plea that the list of candidates and the letters written by the Private Secretary to the Minister were forwarded as a routine manner and that as per the standing instructions, such requests are required to be forwarded to the State Functionaries/Officers, is not at all tenable, moreso, when the subject-matter involved is public employment. In the matter of public employment, equal opportunity is required to be provided to all eligible candidates and cannot be confined to a few candidates nearer and dearer to the power that be or those who have easy access to the corridors of power. 36. The entire design and desire of the respondent No. 10 have been noticed above. He by his letter dated 25.9.2009 addressed to the respondent No. 8, made a request for appointment of the candidates indicated in the letter and in turn the Minister forwarded the same to the petitioner through his Private Secretary, ignoring the fact that it was a matter relating to public employment, through the process of selection, required to be carried out maintaining transparency and fair play and in strict compliance of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Minister after having appealed to the general public to bring to his notice about the irregularities found in the matter of selection himself committed such irregularities and illegalities by making recommendation to the petitioner for appointment of candidates of his or his party's choice. This cannot be said to be an act of transparency and fair play. 37. The respondent No. 10 wanted the petitioner to appoint the persons of his choice. He made that known to the petitioner through the respondent No. 9, the Private Secretary to the departmental (Social Welfare) Minister, i.e. the respondent No. 8. The said Minister acted in tender with the respondents No. 9 and 10, by which his particular desire was expressed to the petitioner. Such action, though illegal on the face of it, is tried to be justified as routine affair. The said Minister acted in tender with the respondents No. 9 and 10, by which his particular desire was expressed to the petitioner. Such action, though illegal on the face of it, is tried to be justified as routine affair. Does it mean that in the garb of routine affair, a Minister can make recommendations in the matter of public employment directing the authority to act in derogation of the rules? Certainly not. 38. In the instant case, the respondent No. 8 being the Minister of the Department in which the petitioner works. Could and would the Minister have found fault with her in case of making the appointments of the candidates recommended by him at the instance of the respondent No. 10? Such recommendations as routine affair and then to find fault with the petitioner at the behest of the respondent No. 10, whose conduct has been noted above, coupled with the fact that the persons recommended did not succeed in the selection, speak volumes of the entire episode. Here is a case in which the respondent No. 8 in one hand made the appeal for transparency and fair play, but on the other hand exactly did the opposite to the same. What better can be an example of hoodwinking the people? 39. The respondent No. 8 found fault with the petitioner in making the selection of candidates. She was not the lone member of the Selection Committee but there were other members and as per the averments made in the writ petition, all actions the selection committee has taken was as per the consensus arrived at by all the members. In a collective decision, the petitioner alone could not have been faulted with, even if there was any irregularity in the matter of selection of candidates. The records produced by the learned State Counsel do not reveal anything of such nature. The only complaint lodged was by the respondent No. 10 who himself had indulged in illegal act in making request to the petitioner through the respondent No. 8 i.e. the Minister for appointment of candidates of his choice. 40. From the materials on record, it appears that the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary, exercised his duties and functions solely on the basis of the desire expressed by the Minister. 40. From the materials on record, it appears that the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary, exercised his duties and functions solely on the basis of the desire expressed by the Minister. The impugned order of suspension did not have the foundation as envisaged in the normal circumstances. It is the Minister's note dated 16.10.2009 referred to above, which was the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension and as per the said note, the petitioner had committed anomalies in the matter of selection as disclosed by the respondent No. 10. As to what was the role of the said respondent No. 10 in the entire episode has been noted above. 41. While the Minister solely on the basis of the complaint of the respondent No. 10, put up the note before the Commissioner and Secretary, the Commissioner and Secretary without any cross verification and unmindful of his independent objective assessment of the situation, simply complied with the desire of the Minister by placing the petitioner under suspension. His affidavit is totally silent in this aspect of the matter, although, by order dated 3.11.2009, he was specifically directed to explain as to whether the petitioner was placed under suspension solely on the basis of the aforesaid note of the Minister or there was any cross verification of the allegations made against the petitioner by respondent No. 10. His affidavit has also missed the point that the ban on publication of the select list was notified only on 9.10.2009 but as per the earlier notification, the select list was to be published on 7-8th October, 2009. 42. It is for nothing, the Apex Court in the case of Trilochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260 made the following observation: In the system of Indian Democratic Governance as contemplated by the Constitution senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage there own discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The Conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. No Government servant shall in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. In Anirudhsinhji Jadeja (1995) 5 SCC 302 , this Court has held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the direction or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Observations of this Court in The Purtabpur Company Ltd. AIR 1970 SC 1896 , are instructive and apposite. Executive officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of Minister or the Government as a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them... 43. There is another aspect of the matter. As noted above the selection was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It is not the case of the respondents that the other members were mere spectators/ciphers. The specific stand of the petitioner in the writ petition that all the decisions were collectively taken by the Selection Committee has not been denied by the respondents. No action has also been taken against the respondent No. 8. It is also not his case that the action of the respondent No. 9 was without his consent, rather it was with his consent. In BRPL v. G.C. Sharma reported in (2008) 1 GLT (SC) 5, the Apex Court noticing such a position in which a particular committee was involved in the decision making process but the particular officer alone was picked up for disciplinary proceeding with eventual punishment of reduction in rank, struck down the departmental proceeding and the order of penalty upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2006) 1 GLT 253. 44. 44. Although the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam representing the respondents, submitted that having regard to the allegations against the petitioner, she has rightly been placed under suspension but the impugned order will have to be judged by the reason stated in the aforesaid note of the respondent No. 8 and cannot be allowed to be supplemented by fresh reason in the form of affidavit or otherwise. In this connection, the following observation of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 is quoted below. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji. Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. 45. For all the aforesaid reasons. I find sufficient force in the case of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 16.10.2009 is set aside and quashed. 46. The writ petition is allowed.