Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 856 (GAU)

Piar Ali v. State of Assam and Ors.

2013-12-09

UJJAL BHUTAN

body2013
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.- This batch of writ petitions were heard together as their subject matters were found to be inter-related and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the cases are broadly divided into three groups, Group A dealing with selection and appointment to Grade IV posts in the State service, Group B relating to challenge to selection and appointment to Grade in posts of the State service and for appointment to such posts and Group C comprising of only one case where challenge to the selection and appointment in Grade ITJ has been made on the ground of non-compliance of statutory reservation for women candidates. GROUP-A:- WP(C) Nos. 3874/2009, 5007/2009, 1092/2010, 1219/2010, 23017 2010, 5488/2010, 6419/2010, 6519/2010, 6603/2010 and 2246/2011. 3. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. BJ. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. N. Baruah, learned Counsel appear for the private respondents. 4. Two separate advertisements dated 07.03.2007 and 18.05.2007 were issued by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Government of Assam. While the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 relates to appointment to Grade III posts, the advertisement dated 18.05.2007 relates to appointment to Grade IV posts. It appears that the above advertisements were issued following Government decision after assessments of vacancies in Grade III and Grade IV posts that were required to be filled up were carried out by various Departments. 5. For filling up the vacant Grade III posts, a written examination was conducted and those candidates who got selected in the written examination were called for typing/computer test and viva-voce. In respect of Grade IV vacancies, the candidates were called to appear in the viva-voce/interview on various dates. 6. Pursuant to the selection conducted, the results of the selection for Grade III and Grade IV posts were published in the news paper, the “Assam Tribune”, on 25.02.2009. In so far Grade III vacancies were concerned, the select list dated 25.02.2009 consisted of 272 selected candidates. For Grade IV vacancies, the select list consisted of 144 selected candidates, including the petitioners. 7. Following publication of the said select lists, some of the Departments/Directorates under the State Government made appointments of the selected candidates to the Grade III vacancies in their Departments/Directorates. For Grade IV vacancies, the select list consisted of 144 selected candidates, including the petitioners. 7. Following publication of the said select lists, some of the Departments/Directorates under the State Government made appointments of the selected candidates to the Grade III vacancies in their Departments/Directorates. However, a number of Departments/Directorates declined to act upon the said select list. Out of the 144 selected candidates for Grade IV, only 33 candidates were allowed to join; the remaining 111 candidates which includes the petitioners, were not allowed to join. In the process, the merit position in the select list was broken. Consequently, many candidates who were below the petitioners in the select list were allowed to join and are presently continuing in service whereas the remaining 111 selected candidates, including the petitioners, are yet to be conferred the benefit of their selection. Likewise, as already noticed above, in case of Grade III vacancies, persons who were placed higher in the select list were deprived of appointment whereas persons placed below them in the select list were given appointment. 8. This led to filing of a number of writ petitions before this Court seeking direction to the State authorities to appoint the selected candidates, both in Grade III and Grade IV, in view of their selection and also in view of appointment of persons placed below them in the select lists. In one of those writ petitions viz., WP(C) No. 3746/2010, an interim order was passed on 22.07.2010 to the effect that the posts which were advertised vide the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 (Grade-in) should not be filled up without the leave of the Court. 9. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings of these writ petitions on 21.05.2010, the learned Advocate General made a submission before the Court that the State Government was examining the issue and to the extent feasible, the selected candidates would be appointed against the available vacancies. Time was sought for on behalf of the State to enable the Government to take a final decision in the matter. This was recorded in the order dated 21.05.2010. Again on 17.06.2010, it was submitted on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Advocate General that the selection made by the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam would be acted upon. Therefore, further time was sought for. This was recorded in the order dated 21.05.2010. Again on 17.06.2010, it was submitted on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Advocate General that the selection made by the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam would be acted upon. Therefore, further time was sought for. On 12.08.2010, learned Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that the Government had decided to accommodate all the selected candidates against sanctioned posts in various Departments. Accordingly, the Court directed that an affidavit be filed by the State in this regard. 10. However, no affidavit was filed by the State. The cases were taken up by the Court on 03.12.2010. On that day, a letter of the Personnel (B) Department, Government of Assam dated 29.07.2010 was placed before the Court. As per the said letter, which was written by the Principal Secretary of the Personnel (B) Department to all administrative Departments and all Heads of Department, it was pointed out that the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training had selected 272 candidates for appointment as Grade-UJ. Out of the 272 selected candidates, 158 candidates were already appointed by various Heads of Department. Remaining 114 candidates were yet to be appointed. It was stated that the matter was placed before the cabinet. Thereafter, as per cabinet approval, Government accepted proposal for regularization of the 158 candidates who were already appointed, subject to clearance of the Finance (SIU) Department and complying with the reservation requirement. Appointments of the remaining 114 candidates against available vacancies were also approved subject to the above conditions. It was clarified that in case vacancies were not available in the original intending Departments, the concerned selected candidates would be considered for appointment against available vacancies in other Departments. This position was reiterated in subsequent communications. Thus, it was clear that the Government's decision was to accommodate all the selected candidates in Grade III. However, in the order dated 03.12.2010 this Court noticed that there was divergence of views between various Departments and it appeared that the Departments were speaking in different voices. Referring to the provisions of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, this Court observed that it is the Personnel Department which is the nodal Department in so far service matters of the State are concerned and that the Chief Secretary is the Head of the administrative machinery in the State. Referring to the provisions of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, this Court observed that it is the Personnel Department which is the nodal Department in so far service matters of the State are concerned and that the Chief Secretary is the Head of the administrative machinery in the State. The Court also referred to a letter dated 13.09.2010 issued by the Chief Secretary to the learned Advocate General wherein it was reiterated that the State cabinet had approved the stand of the Government to appoint all the selected candidates against Grade III vacancies. As regards the issue of appointment of candidates against Grade IV vacancies was concerned, it was pointed out that the Government would require some more time to collect all the required information and to take a policy decision in the matter. Though this Court noted that the State Government had remained steadfast in its commitment to appoint all the selected candidates in Grade III and to examine the matter of appointment to Grade IV after collection of required information for taking a policy decision, it was found that no concrete steps were taken. Thus, this Court in the order dated 03.12.2010 granted last opportunity to the Chief Secretary to file affidavit before the Court stating in categorical terms the stand of the State Government. 11. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary filed an affidavit on 20.12.2010 stating that the Government had already taken decision to accommodate all the selected Grade-Ill candidates. It was further stated that as regards appointment of the selected Grade-IV candidates was concerned, process was being initiated for their appointment as the matter would require to be placed before the State cabinet for a decision. Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under: - “3. That the deponent respectfully state that the Government had already taken a stand to accommodate the remaining 114 Junior Assistants (Grade-in) against available vacancies subject to clearance by Finance Department and fulfillment of requirement of Assam SC/ST (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Rules, 1983. It is also the stand of the Government that in case vacancies are not available in the original intending Heads of Departments, the concerned sponsored candidates will be considered for appointment against the available vacancies in any other Heads of Departments. 4. It is also the stand of the Government that in case vacancies are not available in the original intending Heads of Departments, the concerned sponsored candidates will be considered for appointment against the available vacancies in any other Heads of Departments. 4. That all the Departments/Heads of Department were intimated for compliance of the above decision of the Government vide letter No. ABP123/2001/438 dated 29.07.2010. A copy of the letter dated 29.07.2010 is annexed as Annexure-A. 5. That an affidavit was filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department on 23.08.2010 in WP(C) No. 3746/2010 (Paresh Bharali vs. the State of Assam & others) indicating the stand of the Government in this regard. 6. That as regards appointment of selected candidates to Grade-IV posts, the matter is being examined and details of Grade-IV vacancies in the offices of the Heads of the Departments is being collected and the process is likely to take sometime as the matter is also required to be placed before the State Cabinet for a decision. 7. That in regard to the absorption of remaining 114 Junior Assistants (Grade-III) instructions are again being issued to all concerned Heads of Departments to accommodate the remaining sponsored candidates in available vacancies. 8. That in regard to the issue of selected candidates of Grade-IV posts, the deponent prays for 2(two) month's time to complete the process as stated at para 6 above.” 12. On 22.12.2010, this Court took note of the Government stand as disclosed in the affidavit of the Chief Secretary and directed that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, appropriate orders of appointment in respect of Grade III posts in various Departments in terms of the averments made in the affidavit be prepared and issued. 13. Pursuant to the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary on 20.12.2010, all the selected Grade III candidates were appointed with the approval of the Finance (SIU) Department. 14. Though grievance of the selected Grade EH candidates were thus met, no decision was taken as regards appointment of the remaining selected Grade IV candidates. The proceedings, as would be evident from the order sheet, from then onwards appear to have centered around the grievance of the selected Grade IV candidates. 15. 14. Though grievance of the selected Grade EH candidates were thus met, no decision was taken as regards appointment of the remaining selected Grade IV candidates. The proceedings, as would be evident from the order sheet, from then onwards appear to have centered around the grievance of the selected Grade IV candidates. 15. On 01.03.2011, learned State Counsel submitted before the Court that as regards the pending posts in Grade IV, an enquiry was being conducted by an officer of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and that three months time would be required to complete the enquiry so that a final decision in the matter could be taken. This Court observed that the State should expedite the enquiry to avoid further delay in the matter. 16. When the cases were taken up on 23.08.2011, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the enquiry conducted by the Government was complete but more time was sought for as the enquiry report was being examined for taking necessary decision by the State. Subsequently, further time was sought for to enable the State to take a policy decision. 17. Matter pertaining to appointment of the selected candidates against Grade IV posts in various Departments of the State Government again came up for consideration before the Court on 31.01.2012. Learned State Counsel produced before the Court a copy of the enquiry report and submitted that altogether 144 candidates were selected for appointment to Grade IV posts. It was noticed by the Court that as many as 75 of the selected candidates are petitioners before the Court. It was also submitted by the learned State Counsel that requisite financial sanction was accorded for appointment against only 30 posts in Grade IV but as many as 36 candidates were appointed. The Court further noticed that except a few, most of the candidates who were appointed figured below the petitioners in the select list. However, learned State Counsel could not apprise the Court as to what steps the Government proposed to take in the matter. 18. In the meanwhile, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Finance Department, Government of Assam, which stated that the State Government had decided that in these writ petitions it would be the Personnel Department which would represent the Government. This was noticed by the Court in the order dated 03.10.2012. 19. 18. In the meanwhile, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Finance Department, Government of Assam, which stated that the State Government had decided that in these writ petitions it would be the Personnel Department which would represent the Government. This was noticed by the Court in the order dated 03.10.2012. 19. The matter has remained at that stage since then with no clear cut stand taken by the State Government regarding appointment of the remaining selected candidates to the Grade IV vacancies. 20. Petitioners have contended that they have been discriminated against by the Government in as much as while 144 candidates were selected for appointment to Grade IV posts, 272 candidates were selected for appointment to Grade m posts through the same selection process. Whereas 158 selected candidates from amongst the Grade Ht list were appointed leaving out 114 candidates, in respect of Grade IV posts, out of the total 144 selected candidates, 36 selected candidates were appointed (as per Court order dated 31.01.2012, though now according to the State, 34 candidates were appointed). Thus, 110 candidates remain to be appointed. Petitioners have contended that when the State could take a policy decision to appoint all the selected candidates in respect of Grade III posts, there cannot be any justifiable reason to deny similar treatment to the remaining selected candidates of Grade IV. It is submitted that when an equitable approach was adopted by the State in respect of the Grade III selected candidates, similar approach and yardstick is required to be adopted in respect of the Grade IV selected candidates as well. Failure to do so is discriminatory and violative of the equality principle as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners contend. 21. On behalf of the State, it is contended that altogether 144 candidates were selected for appointment to Grade IV posts in various Departments of the Government. Out of the said selected candidates, 34 candidates were appointed though 30 had the prior sanction of the Finance (SIU) Department. Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam had undertaken the selection process on the strength of office memorandum No. ABP.101/75/Pt.l/4 dated 31.07.1975 of the Personnel (B) Department. It is contended that petitioners have placed reliance on letters bearing Nos. ABP/20/90/6 dated 01.09.1998 and ABP. Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam had undertaken the selection process on the strength of office memorandum No. ABP.101/75/Pt.l/4 dated 31.07.1975 of the Personnel (B) Department. It is contended that petitioners have placed reliance on letters bearing Nos. ABP/20/90/6 dated 01.09.1998 and ABP. 123/2001/257 dated 23.10.2006 issued by the Personnel Department which provided that selection to Grade IV would be made by the said Directorate and would not be governed by the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class HI and Class IV Posts) Rules, 1997. Government of Assam had earlier framed the Assam Staff Selection Board Rules, 1995 to regulate direct recruitment to posts connected with the affairs of the State which did not come within the purview of the Assam Public Service Commission. Thus, the above Rules were made applicable to recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts. Rule 24 of the said Rules repealed all Rules and executive orders covering the field and which were in force immediately before commencement of the 1995 Rules. It is the contention of the learned State Counsel that the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975, which dealt with selection for appointment to Grade IV posts, stood repealed by virtue of Rule 24 of the 1995 Rules. It is further stated that by notification bearing No. ABP 10/95/98 dated 04.09.1996 issued in exercise of power under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Assam Staff Selection Board Rules, 1995 were repealed. But it is contended by the learned State Counsel that the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975 was not revived on repeal of the 1995 Rules. Thereafter, the Government framed the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class in and IV Posts) Rules, 1997 for regulating direct recruitment to Class in and Class IV posts. Therefore, when the selection process for Grade IV was undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.05.2007, the only Rule in force regulating such a selection was the aforesaid Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1997. As such, the letters dated 01.09.1998 and 23.10.2006 issued after coming into force of the 1997 Rules would not be of any legal consequence as those cannot override the 1997 Rules. Therefore, learned State Counsel contends that selection undertaken by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training was erroneous. As such, the letters dated 01.09.1998 and 23.10.2006 issued after coming into force of the 1997 Rules would not be of any legal consequence as those cannot override the 1997 Rules. Therefore, learned State Counsel contends that selection undertaken by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training was erroneous. Reliance has also been placed on the Assam Budget Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2005, more particularly section 7 (1)(a) thereof, to contend that appointments can be made against a vacant sanctioned post in accordance with the laid down Rules, procedures and orders. Since there was prior approval of Finance (SIU) Department for filling up of only 30 posts in Grade IV, appointments beyond those posts cannot be made. It is also contended that selected candidates have no indefeasible right to claim appointment and that ordinarily select lists remain valid for one year only. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions in support of the above proposition. Learned State Counsel, however, admitted that in case of appointments to Grade III posts, the matter was placed before the cabinet and the cabinet decided to appoint all the selected candidates. He has also admitted about the stand taken by the Chief Secretary in his affidavit dated 20.12.2010 wherein it was stated that matter regarding appointment to Grade IV posts was being considered and would be required to be placed before the cabinet. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, however, seriously objected to the above contentions advanced on behalf of the State. It is submitted that while the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India governed recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Grade III posts, procedure for recruitment to Grade IV posts in the Heads of the Department were laid down in the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975. As per the said office memorandum, such vacancies are required to be filled up through a selection process conducted by the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training. Government of Assam notified the Assam Subordinate Service Selection Board Rules, 1991 to regulate recruitment to Grade in posts repealing the earlier Rules. The above 1991 Rules, which did not have statutory character, were repealed in the year 1991 itself vide office memorandum dated 23.09.1991 which clarified that all repealed Rules and Orders would stand revived. Government of Assam notified the Assam Subordinate Service Selection Board Rules, 1991 to regulate recruitment to Grade in posts repealing the earlier Rules. The above 1991 Rules, which did not have statutory character, were repealed in the year 1991 itself vide office memorandum dated 23.09.1991 which clarified that all repealed Rules and Orders would stand revived. As there was some confusion and as some of the Departments were not recruiting candidates from the select lists prepared by the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Government of Assam in the Personnel Department issued office memorandum dated 15.06.1992 stating in categorical terms that the procedure for recruitment to Grade IV in the Heads of the Department was already laid down in the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975 and should be strictly followed. Thereafter, the Assam Staff Selection Board Rules, 1995 were notified providing for constitution of a Staff Selection Board and for regulating direct recruitment to Grade III and Grade IV posts. As per Rule 24 of the 1995 Rules, all Rules and Executive Orders corresponding to the said Rules and which were in force immediately before the commencement of the 1995 Rules were repealed. Thus, the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975 stood repealed. However, the 1995 Rules were repealed vide notification dated 04.09.1996, thus restoring the situation which prevailed prior to coming into force of the 1995 Rules. Government of Assam thereafter enacted the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Grade III and Grade IV Posts) Rules, 1997 to regulate direct recruitment to Grade UJ and Grade IV posts. However, as per Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules, it is provided that in case any question arises relating to interpretation of the Rules, it shall be referred to the Government in the Personnel (B) Department, whose decision shall be final. Personnel Department issued notification dated 01.09.1998 stating that the 1997 Rules shah1 not apply in respect of posts, both Grade El and Grade IV, to which recruitment was made as per existing Service Rules/Executive Orders and it was clarified that the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975 should be followed. This decision was taken keeping in view the mandate of Rule 3(2)(i) which provides that the 1997 Rules shall not apply to posts to which recruitment was made as per existing Service Rules/Executive Orders. This decision was taken keeping in view the mandate of Rule 3(2)(i) which provides that the 1997 Rules shall not apply to posts to which recruitment was made as per existing Service Rules/Executive Orders. Under Rule 39 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, the Personnel Department is empowered to take decision whenever there is any dispute between various Departments relating to service matters and such decision shall be final. Since various Departments were making their own advertisements for recruitment without consulting the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, the Personnel Department issued letter dated 23.10.2006 calling upon all Heads of Department to make recruitment to Grade III and IV posts through the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training by following the procedure laid down in the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975. Therefore, the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training proceeded to make the selection in question. This position was reiterated by the Personnel Department in its subsequent letter dated 31.12.2008. It is therefore contended that the office memorandum dated 31.07.1975 survived and that the circulars dated 01.09.1998 and 23.10.2006 have not been withdrawn. Thus, there is no infirmity in the selection conducted by the said Directorate. Regarding the objection of the learned State Counsel that since Finance (SIU) Department approval was there for only 30 Grade IV posts, no further appointment can be made beyond that number of posts, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for selection, no SIU approval is required, which is required only for appointment. If in the case of Grade IIII selected candidates, the above hurdle could be overcome by taking a policy decision after getting cabinet approval, there is no reason why similar procedure cannot be adopted in case of Grade IV selected candidates. 23. The private respondents i.e. those selected candidates who were appointed to Grade IV posts have filed affidavit. Learned Counsel for the said respondents submitted that due to a combination of various factors, such as lack of approval of Finance (SIU) Department and refusal of some of the Departments to make appointments, the merit position in the select list was broken and some selected candidates despite having lower position in the select list were appointed whereas those placed higher than them in the select list were not appointed. This position has also been explained by the State in the additional affidavit filed on 30.05.2012. This position has also been explained by the State in the additional affidavit filed on 30.05.2012. However, the overall stand of the private respondents is that since the Government had taken a policy decision on 08.06.2010 to appoint all selected Grade III candidates, similar treatment should also be extended to the selected Grade IV candidates as selection of both the streams were conducted through the same selection process. 24. Having noticed the rival positions and considering the trajectory that the present proceeding has taken, it is considered not necessary to delve into the contentious issues raised by the learned State Counsel, including as to whether the 1997 Rules would cast a shadow on the legitimacy of the selection process. 25. As has already been noticed, the same selection process involved recruitment to both Grade-III and Grade-IV posts. For what ever reasons, the case of Grade-III selected candidates somehow got precedence. The Government took a policy decision following approval of the cabinet that all the 272 selected candidates for Grade-III posts would be appointed. This despite the fact that approval of the Finance (SIU) Department was wanting in case of most of the candidates. The Government decision was taken subject to such approval by the Finance (SIU) Department. Moreover, the State Government did not allow the question as to the applicability of the 1997 Rules to the selection, an issue now raised by the learned State Counsel, to derail or come in the way of taking the decision. If that be the case in respect of appointment to Grade-III posts, it is not understood as to why the same yard stick cannot be applied in respect of the Grade-IV selected candidates. As already noticed, 144 candidates were selected for appointment to Grade-IV posts, out of which 34 candidates were appointed, though 30 vacancies had the prior sanction of the Finance (SIU) Department. The State respondents are objecting to the appointment of the remaining 110 candidates on the ground that there is no Finance (SIU) Department approval for such appointment. This was also the position in respect of the Grade-m selected candidates but inspite of that, their cases were taken up by the State apparently following principles of equity and it was decided to appoint them subject to approval of Finance (SIU) Department. Thereafter, such approval was forthcoming and all the selected Grade-in candidates got relief based on equitable consideration. This was also the position in respect of the Grade-m selected candidates but inspite of that, their cases were taken up by the State apparently following principles of equity and it was decided to appoint them subject to approval of Finance (SIU) Department. Thereafter, such approval was forthcoming and all the selected Grade-in candidates got relief based on equitable consideration. There has to be consistency in the decision making process of the State. It cannot adopt one yardstick for one group and another yardstick for the other group, both groups being similarly placed. 26. Having regard to the above, Court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the same approach which was adopted in the case of Grade-III selected candidates is adopted in respect of the Grade-IV selected candidates as it would be consistent with the stand taken by the State before the Court through the repeated assurances given by the learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate General and the affidavit of the Chief Secretary. 27. There is another reason why such an approach is required to be taken. Because of divergent stands taken by different Departments resulting in some Departments acting on the select list and some Departments refusing to implement the select list, the merit position in the select list has been broken. Consequently, candidates placed below in the select list have got appointment whereas candidates placed at higher position in the select list have not received appointment. This obvious anomalous situation cannot continue. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court in the course of the hearing that admittedly there are adequate number of vacancies in Grade-IV posts in the different Departments which can accommodate all the selected candidates. In the affidavit of the Chief Secretary dated 20.12.2010, it was clearly stated that the matter regarding appointment of the selected candidates against Grade-IV posts was under the active consideration of the Government but the process would take some time. This statement was made in the context of the cabinet decision to appoint all the 272 selected candidates for Grade-III posts. 28. Principles of equity would require that the treatment which was meted out to the Grade-Ill selected candidates should also be extended to the Grade-IV selected candidates as the State is unable to show any distinguishing feature between the two groups. 28. Principles of equity would require that the treatment which was meted out to the Grade-Ill selected candidates should also be extended to the Grade-IV selected candidates as the State is unable to show any distinguishing feature between the two groups. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another vs. Chander Shekher and another reported in 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 611 had observed that equity does not know the half way. in other words, if principles of equity are to be invoked, it must be applied to the fullest extent. It will be patently unjust and unfair if one batch of selected candidates selected through the same process are bestowed the benefit of equity whereas the other batch of selected candidates are left in the lurch. 29. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above and taking an overall view of the matter, it is hereby directed that the matter regarding appointment of the remaining Grade-IV selected candidates be placed before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, who shall ensure that the case of the said selected candidates are placed before the State cabinet for necessary decision. It is expected that having due regard to the circumstances, the State cabinet would consider the matter and take an appropriate decision. The above exercise may be carried out within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the office of the Chief Secretary. GROUP-B:- WP(C) Nos. 867/2011, 1436/2012, 3764/2012, 5917/2012 and 6104/2012. 30. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. R.K. Borah, learned State Counsel appearing for the Forest Department and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Government of Assam. 31. Basic facts have already been noticed above while dealing with the Group A cases. As already discussed, two advertisements were issued by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, one dated 07.03.2007 and the other dated 18.05.2007. While the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 pertained to Grade III posts, the second advertisement dated 18.05.2007 pertained to Grade IV posts. In so far Grade III posts were concerned, a select list dated 25.02.2009 was published consisting of 272 selected candidates. While the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 pertained to Grade III posts, the second advertisement dated 18.05.2007 pertained to Grade IV posts. In so far Grade III posts were concerned, a select list dated 25.02.2009 was published consisting of 272 selected candidates. It was found that out of the 272 selected candidates, 158 candidates were appointed by various Heads of Departments. Remaining 114 candidates were yet to be appointed. A number of writ petitions were filed before this Court questioning the inaction of the State in not appointing the remaining selected candidates from the select list. During the Court proceedings, repeated assurances were given on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General and by the learned Additional Advocate General that cases of the remaining 114 selected candidates were being considered for appointment. Ultimately, the matter relating to appointment of the remaining 114 candidates was placed before the State cabinet. Following cabinet decision, policy decision was taken by the Government for regularization of the 158 candidates who were already appointed. Appointments of the remaining 114 candidates against available vacancies were also approved subject to clearance by the Finance (SIU) Department and compliance with the reservation requirement. In this connection, Chief Secretary of the State wrote a letter dated 13.09.2010 about the above cabinet decision. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary filed an affidavit before the Court on 20.12.2010 stating about the Government decision to appoint all the selected Grade III candidates i.e. 272. It was further stated that necessary instructions were issued to all concerned Heads of Department to appoint the remaining Grade III selected candidates. When the cases were taken up on 22.10.2010, this Court took note of the Government stand as disclosed in the above affidavit of the Chief Secretary and directed that in order to avoid further litigation in the matter, appropriate orders of appointment in respect of Grade III posts in various Departments in terms of the averments made in the affidavit of the Chief Secretary be prepared and issued. Thereafter, all the selected Grade in candidates were appointed with the approval of the Finance (SIU) Department. 32. Thus, as can be seen from the above, appointments to all 272 selected Grade III candidates were made because of the Court monitoring which led to the Government taking a policy decision to appoint all the 272 selected candidates following cabinet approval, whereafter the appointments were made. 33. 32. Thus, as can be seen from the above, appointments to all 272 selected Grade III candidates were made because of the Court monitoring which led to the Government taking a policy decision to appoint all the 272 selected candidates following cabinet approval, whereafter the appointments were made. 33. Long thereafter, the present group of cases came to be filed. 34. It is projected in this group of cases that pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.03.2007, respondents prepared and published a combined merit list on 18.02.2009. These petitioners contend that they were also selected and their names figured in the combined merit list. Grievance expressed in WP(C) No. 867/2011 is that the authorities were contemplating to appoint persons whose names did not figure in the select list Prayer made is for a direction to appoint the petitioners as Grade III as their names appear in the combined merit list dated 18.02.2009 and not to appoint any person from any subsequent select list till the combined merit list is exhausted, in WP(C) No. 1436/2012, the writ petition is based on similar claim. Additionally, it is contended that respondents in a very clandestine manner appointed 272 candidates from the combined select list in violation of the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III and Class IV Posts) Rules, 1997. It is further contended that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam issued letter dated 01.10.2010 to all the Heads of Department not to publish any advertisement for fresh recruitment of Junior Assistant (Grade III). It is also contended that a meeting was held on 23.12.2010 under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary where it was resolved to keep the process of recruitment to Grade III posts in abeyance till the appointment of Grade in candidates selected by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam is completed. Inspite of that, various Departments, including the Forest Department, issued subsequent advertisements including advertisement dated 18.08.2010 for recruitment of Junior Assistant (Grade III). Prayer made is for appointment of the petitioners as Grade III and for quashing of the recruitment process initiated subsequently vide advertisement dated 18.08.2010. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2012 issued notice and in the meanwhile directed the respondents not to declare the results of the written test conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.08.2010. 35. WP(C) No. 3764/2012 is also structured on similar claim and grievance. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2012 issued notice and in the meanwhile directed the respondents not to declare the results of the written test conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.08.2010. 35. WP(C) No. 3764/2012 is also structured on similar claim and grievance. However, in this case the subsequent advertisement is by the Printing and Stationary Department. Prayer made is for appointing the petitioners and for quashing the subsequent advertisements dated 28.12.2011 and 27.05.2012. 36. Case of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5917/2012 is that his name figures at SI. No. 551 of the combined select list dated 18.02.2009. But no appointments were made. Thereafter, by extending the validity of the select list, similarly situated persons like the petitioner were appointed but inspite of being selected, he has not been appointed. Prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner and not to make any appointment to Grade El posts from any subsequent select list till all the selected candidates of the combined select list have been appointed. 37. Petitioners of WP (C) No. 3764/2012 again filed WP(C) No. 6104/2012. In addition to reiterating their case as projected in WP(C) No. 3764/2012, the said petitioners have additionally challenged certain subsequent advertisements issued by the Director of Land Records and Survey, Assam, Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Assam, Director of Agriculture, Assam and Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. In addition to the prayers made in WP(C) No. 3764/2012, the petitioners in this petition have also sought for quashing of the select list of 272 candidates dated 25.02.2009. 38. All the writ petitions were extensively heard. During the hearing and from the affidavits filed, consistent stand of the State which is discernible is that in so far Grade El posts are concerned, there is only one select list which is dated 25.02.2009 consisting of 272 selected candidates. In the additional affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training on 18.03.2013, it is once again reiterated that a cabinet decision was taken which was communicated by the Personnel (B) Department to the Directorate vide letter dated 29.07.2010. It was clearly stated in the said letter that the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam had selected 272 candidates during the year 2008 and had sponsored their names to various Heads of Department for appointment as Junior Assistant (Grade III). It was clearly stated in the said letter that the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam had selected 272 candidates during the year 2008 and had sponsored their names to various Heads of Department for appointment as Junior Assistant (Grade III). Out of the 272 candidates so sponsored by the Directorate of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam, 158 candidates were already appointed by various Heads of Department. Since remaining 114 candidates were yet to be appointed, the matter was placed before the cabinet. The cabinet approved the proposal for regularization of 158 candidates sponsored by the Directorate and who had already being appointed. Appointments of remaining 114 candidates against available vacancies were also approved. 39. Thus, it is the consistent stand of the State that there was one select list dated 25.02.2009 consisting of 272 selected candidates for Grade III. Initially 158 candidates were appointed. Because of the Court monitoring and cabinet decision, appointments of those 158 candidates were not only regularized but it was also decided to appoint all the remaining 114 candidates. Thereafter the Court ensured that appointment letters were issued to avoid future litigation following which the appointments were made. 40. The cases pertaining to appointment in Grade III posts came to be filed from the year 2009 onwards. The cases were monitored by the Court on regular basis. Not only the Court monitored the steps taken by the Government to appoint all the 272 selected candidates in Grade III posts, the Court also ensured that the consequential appointment letters were issued and the appointees joined their respective posts to avoid future complicacies and litigation. 41. Having regard to the above, contention of the petitioners that there was a combined select list dated 19.02.2009 cannot be accepted. The further contention raised by the petitioners that 272 of the selected candidates were appointed in Grade III posts in a very clandestine manner is also contrary to the records of the Court proceedings as already noticed and in wholly untenable. 42. As noticed above, proceedings before this Court regarding appointment to Grade III posts commenced in the year 2009 and continued thereafter. At no stage of the proceedings did the petitioners come forward to get themselves impleaded in the pending proceedings and to project their case. Only after the process of appointment was completed, the petitioners have filed the present group of cases. At no stage of the proceedings did the petitioners come forward to get themselves impleaded in the pending proceedings and to project their case. Only after the process of appointment was completed, the petitioners have filed the present group of cases. Thus, these petitions are clearly hit by delay and laches. 43. Moreover, challenge to the select list dated 25.02.2009 is not only belated but also cannot be gone into in the absence of the selected candidates, none of whom have been impleaded as respondents in the present group of cases. 44. Reliance placed on the directive of the Chief Secretary to keep in abeyance all subsequent recruitment process till completion of the present recruitment process of Grade III is misplaced as the same has to be understood in the proper context and in a reasonable manner. The said directive has to be construed in the context in which it was issued. In view of the pending Court cases and as the controversy relating to appointment of all the 272 selected Grade III candidates were yet to be resolved, the aforesaid direction came to be issued. The said directive cannot be understood to mean an embargo on recruitment for eternity. Once the process relating to appointment of 272 selected Grade III candidates is complete and the dispute is resolved, the said direction would cease to remain operative. There cannot be an embargo for subsequent recruitment by the different Departments after the present recruitment process is over, which in fact is over so far Grade in is concerned. 45. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no good ground to entertain the Group B batch of cases. There is no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. Interim order(s) passed earlier stands vacated. GROUP-C:- WP(C) No. 1999/2012 46. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the select list dated 25.02.2009 published by the Director of Employment and Craftsman Training, Assam consisting of 272 candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (Grade III). 47. Facts have already been noticed above. It has also been noticed how appointments to Grade III posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 and select list dated 25.02.2009 were made following Court monitoring and cabinet decision. 48. 47. Facts have already been noticed above. It has also been noticed how appointments to Grade III posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.03.2007 and select list dated 25.02.2009 were made following Court monitoring and cabinet decision. 48. Though the challenge was initially made on various grounds, at the time of admission hearing of the case alongwith the other cases which were heard analogously, the sole point argued was that petitioner was a woman candidate and sought selection and appointment as a woman candidate. Though the select list consisted of various reserve categories, such as, SC, ST (P), ST (H), OBC, MOBC and Physically Handicapped i.e., both vertical and horizontal reservation, but there was no reservation for women candidates. 49. Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2005 provides for reservation of vacancies in services and posts for women in the State of Assam. It provides for reservation for women in vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment. Section 4 of the 2005 Act provides that 30% of the vacancies in respect of appointments to the services and posts in the establishments which are to be filled up by direct recruitment, shall be reserved for the women candidates. First proviso to Section 4 stipulates that such reservation shall be inclusive of the reservation provided to SC, ST (P), ST (H), OBC, MOBC or to persons with disability within the respective reserved category. 50. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted an exhaustive written argument. 51. It is contended that out of the total 272 selected candidates, only 25 women candidates were selected. It is also contended that 125 unreserved candidates were selected under the general category and applying the 30% reservation, 38 numbers of women candidates ought to have been selected in the general category (petitioner belongs to the general category). All the 25 women candidates selected belong to the unreserved category. Even then 13 more women candidates (38-25=13) ought to have been selected in order of merit from amongst the women of unreserved category. Thus, 13 excess male candidates were selected and appointed depriving equal number of deserving women candidates. 52. All the 25 women candidates selected belong to the unreserved category. Even then 13 more women candidates (38-25=13) ought to have been selected in order of merit from amongst the women of unreserved category. Thus, 13 excess male candidates were selected and appointed depriving equal number of deserving women candidates. 52. Having regard to the fact that appointments were made in respect of Grade III vacancies following Court monitoring which ensured issuance of consequential appointment letters to the selected candidates to prevent future complicacies and litigation, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Moreover, the challenge has been made very belatedly. All the appointments were made around December, 2010 but the writ petition was filed more than two years thereafter on 18.04.2012. Though delay in riling the writ petition has been sought to be explained on account of delay in finalization of appointments following Court cases, the same does not appear to be weighty enough to warrant belated interference by the Court. As noticed above, all the remaining appointments to Grade III were made during December, 2010 and the writ petition was filed in April, 2012, 28 months later. It will neither be fair nor justified to unsettle the entire recruitment process initiated in the year 2007 and completed in the year 2010 at this belated stage. Nobody prevented the petitioner from joining the proceeding earlier. Further more, the selected candidates are not before the Court. Even going by petitioner's own contention that she seeks appointment as a woman candidate in the unreserved category, facts disclosed indicate that 125 candidates were selected in the said category, including 25 women. According to the petitioner, there are 13 excess male selected candidates. But none of the male selected candidates under the unreserved category have been made parties. In their absence, there can be no adjudication on the issue so belatedly raised by the petitioner. 53. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain WP(C) No. 1999/2012. The said writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 54. In view of above, the conclusion may be summarized as under: - (i) Group A cases are allowed as per direction contained in paragraph 29 of this judgment; (ii) Group B and Group C cases are dismissed; (iii) All interim orders are vacated. 55. The said writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 54. In view of above, the conclusion may be summarized as under: - (i) Group A cases are allowed as per direction contained in paragraph 29 of this judgment; (ii) Group B and Group C cases are dismissed; (iii) All interim orders are vacated. 55. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost.