Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 866 (GAU)

Paree Mahanta Hazarika v. Managing Director, Assam Govt. Marketing Corporation Limited

2017-07-10

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called upon. 2. The orders dated 08.02.2017, 27.03.2017 and 31.03.2017 also shows that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter was called upon. 3. As per the Office Note dated 05.08.2014, Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, Mr. A. Chakraborty and Mr. N. Mondal, learned counsel had entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Neither the affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the aforesaid learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, nor anyone has appeared for them. 4. Under the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of the required cooperation from the learned counsel, this Court has no other option but to take up the matter on its own. 5. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is stated that upon coming to know that there exist certain vacancies in Pragjyotika, Assam Emporium under the Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd., (for short, AGMC) the petitioner had submitted an application dated 13.09.2013 for the post of Sales Assistant. 6. Accordingly by the order dated 13.09.2013 of the Managing Director, the petitioner was appointed as Sales Assistant and subsequently, by another order dated 20.12.2013 of the Managing Director of the AGMC, her services was extended for a period of 90 days. Subsequently, on 28.04.2014, the services of the petitioner was again extended for 90 days. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner having rendered her services to the full satisfaction of the respondent authorities, she has the right to continue in service. 8. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2014 of the Managing Director of the AGMC, which indicates that in the 231st Meeting of the Board of Directors of AGMC held on 20.06.2014, a decision was taken that the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as a casual worker, shall not be continued after the expiry of the term of engagement. 9. The only stand taken in the writ petition in paragraph 7 is that the respondent authorities instead of appointing the petitioner had chosen to remove the petitioner from service without any cogent reason. 10. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. A mere perusal of the statement made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner was given appointed for a fixed period on application made by her and the same was not made pursuant to any selection procedure or by following the constitutional scheme. 12. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there does not exist any subsisting right of the petitioner to remain in service and, as such, no infirmity is found in the order dated 20.06.2014 of the Managing Director of the AGMC by which it was decided that the services of the petitioner shall not be continued any further. 13. Accordingly, in that view of the matter, this writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.