Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 86 (GAU)

Hano Dumi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-01-27

KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2020
JUDGMENT Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. N. Tania, the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on call for any of the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed under 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are stated to be serving as contingency staff in the Office of the District Medical Officer, Kra Daadi District, have assailed the appointment of the private respondents with the direction to the State respondents to appoint the petitioners in the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and Multi Purpose Worker(MPW). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had allotted 47 posts of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in respect of Kra Daadi District by an order dated 13.04.2016. It is projected that 25% of such post was reserved for the existing contingency staff. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued by the Directorate of Health Services (respondent No.4) inviting applications to fill up the posts of MTS and MPW by way of an advertisement dated 02.08.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the said advertisement, though 12 posts were reserved to be filled up from amongst contingency staff, but such information was concealed from the petitioners and, as such, none of the petitioners could apply for quota reserved for the said vacant posts. 4. It is submitted that only after the results of the selection process was declared and none of the petitioners were found to be selected against the reserved quota earmarked for the contingency staff. The petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 on 07.09.2016 and before the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 31.10.2016 and 07.11.2016 respectively. It is submitted that the selection against the reserved quota for contingency staff ought to have been done through the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). However, the authorities did not route the selection process in respect of existing contingency staff through DPC. It is also submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners were not redressed and replied. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that fact finding committee was constituted on 09.09.2016, in pursuant to which the committee submitted their report dated 14.10.2016 to the respondent No.4. It is also submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners were not redressed and replied. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that fact finding committee was constituted on 09.09.2016, in pursuant to which the committee submitted their report dated 14.10.2016 to the respondent No.4. By referring to the said report it is submitted that the fact finding committee had given a report to the effect that the District Medical Officer concerned did not consider the genuine case of the existing contingency staff of Kra Daadi District and without considering their grievance, de-reserved 12 posts for the general quota and did not keep a single post for the contingency staff though some of them had served for 8 years. It was further observed that the District Medical Officer, Kra Daadi District (respondent No.5) could have sought permission from the respondent No.4 for dereservation of the said 12 posts, which was not done. 6. Accordingly, it is submitted that the stand of the petitioners was vindicated by the report dated 14.10.2016 of the fact finding committee. Accordingly, it is submitted that in terms of the said report, the authorities ought to have taken a decision for re-conducting the examination or to issue an appointment letter to the petitioners for appointment to the post of MTS and MPW against reservation for those posts to be filled up from amongst the existing contingency staff. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners pray for allowing the writ petition in terms of the prayer made. 7. It is seen that in paragraph 3.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, among others, a categorically stand was taken that in the present case in hand, 25% posts equal to 11 posts of MTS and 2 posts of MPW were kept reserved for consideration for absorption as MTS and MPW. However, the District Selection Board, after going through their bio-data i.e. duration of service as contingency staff and education qualification, none of the serving contingency staff were found qualified as per the Recruitment Rule. Accordingly, on approval from the competent authorities, collective decision of the Board was taken and 12 posts were de-reserved and subsequently filled up from merit list of direct recruitment. Accordingly, on approval from the competent authorities, collective decision of the Board was taken and 12 posts were de-reserved and subsequently filled up from merit list of direct recruitment. It has also been stated that the Kra Daadi District, being newly created, was suffering from acute shortage of manpower and therefore, 25% of the post could not be kept reserved for indefinite period only on ground that no eligible candidate was available. 8. In light of the said specific stand of the State respondents, it is seen that in the present writ petition, the petitioners have not assailed the action of the State respondents to de-reserve the 11 posts of MTS and 2 post of MPW. It is further seen that the entire selection process arising out of the advertisement dated 02.08.2016, was not challenged. From the result notification, it is seen that the private respondents whose appointment have been challenged are randomly picked up by excluding the names of the persons above the private respondents in the result and there is no explanation in the writ petition as to why some people from the select list were excluded and why others were impleaded as the private respondents herein. 9. Even assuming that the learned counsel for the petitioners is right in projecting that the order of de-reservation was bad, yet, the decision of the concerned authorities to de-reserve the 11 posts of MTS and 2 posts of MPW to be filled up from merit list still stands without any challenge to the same. As indicated above, the selection process itself is not under challenge and from the statements made in writ petition it cannot be ascertained as to which of the 11 posts of 11 MTS and 2 post of MPW were de-reserved and which of the persons were appointed against the de-reserved post. 10. Moreover, there is no statement in the writ petition regarding qualification and the period of the service that the petitioners have rendered so as to make them qualify for being considered for appointment to the posts of MTS and MPS under the Recruitment Rules. In the absence of the material particulars and in the absence of any challenge to the order of de-reservation, the present writ petition fails and same is dismissed. 11. In the absence of the material particulars and in the absence of any challenge to the order of de-reservation, the present writ petition fails and same is dismissed. 11. However, before parting with the records, it is left open to the petitioners to submit a representation before the authorities to consider that if there is any vacancy to be filled up in the post of MTS and MPW, so as to enable the State respondent to consider the possibility of a fresh exercise for selection of the deserving eligible contingency staff as MTS and MPW under the Recruitment Rules. With such observation, which is not to be considered or construed as a direction from this Court, this writ petition stands dismissed.