Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 888 (GAU)

Vizapole Khanyo v. State of Nagaland and Ors.

2014-09-18

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2014
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.:-- 1. The challenge in this writ petition are Annexure-L and M notifications, both dated 08.08.2011. By the first notification, the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-III with the condition that she would require to face the speed test examination to be conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission within two years. Coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenographer-cum-Computer Assistant in the office of the Nagaland State Legal Services Authority on fixed pay basis in the year 2004. The petitioner is a diploma holder in Computer Application. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Typist in the year 2002. 2. Nagaland State Legal-Services Authority was constituted in the year 1999. The Department of Justice and Law made proposal for creation of various posts for appointment to the said authority. Accordingly, one post each in the grade of Stenographer Grade-III, UDA cum Accountant, Computer Assistant, Office Peon and Dak Runner were approved by the Cabinet Simultaneously, the post of Typist was re-designated as Computer Assistant in the proposal. Such a course of action was adopted as the post of Typist was abolished by the Government. 3. In view of the aforesaid proposal made, it was the expectation of the petitioner that she would be appointed against the post of Computer Assistant. However, she was appointed as Stenographer Grade-III and also with the stipulation of facing the Speed Test to be conducted by the NPSC. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 was appointed as Computer Assistant. 4. According to the petitioner since there was no proposal for creation of post of Stenographer Grade-III, but the proposal was for the post of Computer Assistant and having regard to the fact that she was serving as Computer Assistant, her services ought to have been regularized and/or she ought to have been appointed against the sanctioned post of Computer Assistant instead of Stenographer Grade-III, for which there was no proposal as such. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, both official and private, justifying the impugned action of the official respondents, it has been stated that although the respondent No. 5 was working as Typist but due to the re-designation of the post as Computer Assistant, she was entitled to get appointment as Computer Assistant. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, both official and private, justifying the impugned action of the official respondents, it has been stated that although the respondent No. 5 was working as Typist but due to the re-designation of the post as Computer Assistant, she was entitled to get appointment as Computer Assistant. Referring to the case of the petitioner, it is stated that since she was originally appointed as Stenographer Grade-III cum Computer Assistant in the year 2004, there is nothing wrong, in appointing her against the post of Stenographer Grade-III. As regards, the proposal for Stenographer Grade-III, it has been, stated that the same is a promotional post from the post of Stenographer Grade-III Admittedly, the post of Stenographer Grade-III carries higher scale of pay than that of Computer Assistant. 6. In the aforesaid background of the case, on being pointed out that arrangement and adjustment were required to be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances to accommodate all the temporary staff working in the authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rider in the appointment order of the petitioner that she will have to face the speed test to be conducted by the NPCS is too harsh and needs to be conducted departmentally, entitling the petitioner to get confirmation in her post with the future prospect of promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. 7. Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel representing the respondent No. 4 submits that even if the petitioner is made to appear in the speed test to be conducted by the department but for future promotion etc., the same will have to be guided as per the Recruitment Rules and the provisions of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. Specifically referring to Section 6(5) and (8), he submits that the appointments are required to be made by the Authority and not in the manner that has been done in the instant case. However, he submits that since all have been accommodate in their respective post having regard to their long length of service, the said position need not be interfered with. 8. In view of the above, while not interfering with the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the writ petition is disposed of providing that the petitioner may face the speed test to be conducted by the department within two years and not by the NPSC. 8. In view of the above, while not interfering with the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the writ petition is disposed of providing that the petitioner may face the speed test to be conducted by the department within two years and not by the NPSC. However, in future, in all the appointments in the State Legal Services Authority shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, if any, holding the field. With the above direction and observation, writ petition stands disposed off, without however, any order as to costs.