Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 902 (GAU)

Gita Kumari v. V. K. Pipersania

2017-07-12

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. By the order dated 20.01.2015 passed in WP.(C) No. 148/2011, a direction was issued that the earlier recruitment process including the selection of the respondent therein to the post of Record Suppliers in the Secretariat Administration (Records and Library) Department was quashed. It was further directed that the respondent authorities are to re-start the said post. Ms. V.L. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor has produced an order dated 07.06.2017 of the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secretariat Administration Department, which provides that it appears to the said authority that the record supplier is a Grade-III post and earlier this post was filled up by the interview only. But as per the present recruitment policy of the Government, the provision of interview in the process of employment of Grade-III and Grade-IV posts was discontinued as per the letter dated 25.05.2016. 2. It was further stated in order to implement the Govt. policy, appropriate amendment of the concerned service rule namely, Assam Secretariat Supervisory (Record Branch), Record Supplier, Record Sorters and Painter's Service Rules, 2010, is necessary. 3. Accordingly, it is provided in the order of the Joint Secretary that the advertisement would be issued after completion of the amendment of the service authorities. 4. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit filed by the respondent contemnor No. 1, it has been stated that the direction of this Court in the order dated 20.01.2015 had already been complied with. It is also stated that as the selection was quashed and none of the candidates had been appointed, the concerned enquiry officer was directed to start the recruitment process by an advertisement in prominent newspaper vide No. S(E) 10/2012/220 dated 26.03.2015. 5. It was further stated that in view of the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2017, the advertisement for recruitment would be made after completion of the amendment process. 6. The aforesaid stand of the respondent authorities in the so called speaking order dated 07.06.2017 as well as in paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition do not amount to sufficient compliance of the direction of this Court. 7. When the direction of this Court is to re-start the recruitment process, it is for the respondent authorities to re-start the process after advertisement. 7. When the direction of this Court is to re-start the recruitment process, it is for the respondent authorities to re-start the process after advertisement. In the event, the authorities are of the view that the recruitment process cannot be started without incorporating the amendment in the Rules, the appropriate remedy would be to get the order suitably modified, but under no circumstances the authorities can sit over the direction of the Court. 8. The principle of conscious decision to await a recruitment process till the defective Rules are suitably amended, as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao & Ors, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 59 is not applicable in a contempt proceeding to avoid compliance of direction of the Court. 9. The stand of the respondent contemnor that the recruitment process is to be awaited till government incorporates appropriate amendment in the service rules, therefore, cannot be a reason not to comply with the direction of this Court. It is expected that the respondent contemnor forthwith do the needful, by either complying with the earlier direction of this Court contained in order dated 20.01.2015 in the required manner or take appropriate steps as indicated. For the purpose, 4 (four) weeks time is granted to the respondent authorities. List accordingly.