Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 318 (GAU)

Ashok Giri Mahato v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2021-03-25

NANI TAGIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Binter Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Lissing Perme, learned standing counsel, Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 5; and Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private respondents No. 6 to 13. 2. The writ petitioners, altogether 93 in numbers, who are stated to be casual employees serving under various Sub-Divisions in different disciplines under the establishment of the Executive Engineer(E), Yingkiong Electrical Division, Department of Power, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appointment of private respondents No. 6, 7, 8 & 10 as Meter Reader W/C employees and private respondents No. 9,11 & 12 as Computer Operator W/C employees, on the ground that the appointment of the aforesaid private respondents, as W/C employees, have been made without conducting a trade test or if at all such a trade test was held, without affording the petitioners an opportunity to participate in such trade test. The petitioners, stated to be serving as casual employees indifferent disciplines, having been appointed-on different dates, in order of seniority, which have been highlighted in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, are quoted hereunder, for ready reference: Sl. The petitioners, stated to be serving as casual employees indifferent disciplines, having been appointed-on different dates, in order of seniority, which have been highlighted in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, are quoted hereunder, for ready reference: Sl. No. Name of the petitioners/respondents Seniority list of petitioners Trade wise of petitioners Designation Educational Qualification Date of Joining 1 A.G. Mahato petitioner No. 1 2 H/Skilled Lineman Nil 16/9/88 2 Ahong Osik petitioner No. 2 3 H/Skilled Lineman Nil 12/5/90 3 Tarong Osik petitioner No.3 6 H/Skilled Lineman IV Passed 20/6/91 4 Hori Talukar petitioner No.4 10 H/Skilled C/Operator XII Passed 1/1/93 5 Lalit Narjari petitioner No.5 11 H/Skilled Electrician VI Passed 1/12/93 6 Kombo Pasi petitioner No.6 12 H/Skilled Wireman V Passed 1/4/93 7 Sunil Kakoti petitioner No.7 13 H/Skilled Wireman X Passed with ITI 21/4/93 8 Bamut Nijo petitioner No.8 20 H/Skilled M/Reader X Passed 12/12/94 9 Tukbeng Borang petitioner No. 9 30 H/Skilled Lineman V passed 21/7/95 10 D K Bhorali petitioner No. 10 31 H/Skilled Wireman X passed with ITI 21/7/95 11 Maktem Langkam petitioner No. 11 37 H/Skilled M/Reader X Passed 6/9/95 12 Mohan Nath petitioner No. 12 43 H/Skilled Electrician Nill 1/12/95 13 Lakhi Chetry petitioner No. 13 48 H/Skilled Lineman VI passed 21/1/96 14 Nyarik Tao petitioner No. 14 49 H/Skilled Lineman VIII passed 24/1/96 15 Uma Gogoi petitioner No.15 53 H/Skilled Wireman VIII passed 1/5/96 16 Bim Bdr Thapa petitioner No. 16 54 H/Skilled Lineman VIII passed 1/5/96 17 Robin Phukan petitioner No. 17 58 H/Skilled Lineman IX 1/6/96 18 Swapna Limbu petitioner No. 18 59 H/Skilled C/Operator XII passed 1/12/96 19 Sudhesi Devi petitioner No. 19 60 H/Skilled Sweeper Nil 1/6/96 20 Opang Ezing petitioner No. 20 62 H/Skilled Chowkidar Nil 6/6/96 21 Tako Abi petitioner No. 21 77 H/Skilled HT Lineman V 22 Ishwar Biswakarma petitioner No. 22 78 H/Skilled P/Board Nil 1/4/97 23 Orik Modi petitioner No. 23 79 H/Skilled P/Board X passed 1/4/97 24 Oni Teng petitioner No. 24 80 H/Skilled Peon V 1/4/97 25 Mohan Pegu petitioner No. 25 81 H/Skilled P/Board VII 1/5/97 26 N. Chakraborty petitioner No. 26 82 H/Skilled Wireman V 1/6/97 27 Yatu Mibang petitioner No. 27 83 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII Passed 1/6/97 28 Seema Nitik petitioner No. 28 92 H/Skilled Peon VIII 1/9/97 29 Nyolik Ninggo petitioner No. 29 93 H/Skilled Lineman Nil 14/8/97 30 Jogo Angu petitioner No. 30 95 H/Skilled Mali VIII Passed 10/10/97 31 Otir Sibo petitioner No. 31 97 H/Skilled C/Operator V 21/3/98 32 Duban Peyang petitioner No. 32 100 H/Skilled Lineman VI 22/5/98 33 Olik Yompang petitioner No. 33 104 H/Skilled Peon V 21/5/99 34 Opi Tekseng petitioner No. 34 107 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII 1/6/99 35 Mindo Tsomo petitioner No. 35 108 H/Skilled Peon Nil 23/6/99 36 Baneng Jamoh petitioner No. 36 114 H/Skilled M/Reader IX Passed 21/1/00 37 Denam Pertin petitioner No. 37 115 H/Skilled M/Reader XII Passed 1/1/00 38 Onot Paron petitioner No. 38 117 H/Skilled Wireman V 21/2/00 39 Okep Teng petitioner No. 39 120 H/Skilled Lineman VIII 1/10/00 40 Olen Tayeng petitioner No. 40 121 H/Skilled Peon VI 1/10/00 41 Opet Mize petitioner No. 41 123 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII 16/10/00 42 Tagom Yochung petitioner No. 42 124 H/Skilled M/reader X passed 21/10/00 43 Taggam Panggam petitioner No. 43 127 H/Skilled Lineman IV 1/12/00 44 Anup Krishnan petitioner No. 44 128 H/Skilled Penal Board VIII 1/12/00 45 Rasel Pasing petitioner No. 45 130 H/Skilled Penal Board X with ITI 1/2/01 46 Kasimang Tatin petitioner No. 46 133 H/Skilled M/Reader X 21/7/01 47 Elen Jiji petitioner No. 47 134 H/Skilled M/Reader X Passed 1/8/01 48 Adurang Aekseng petitioner No. 48 140 H/Skilled Wireman VII 21/11/01 49 Tapir Badu petitioner No. 49 148 H/Skilled Wireman VII 23/2/02 50 Tobo Tayeng petitioner No. 50 149 H/Skilled Lineman IX 1/3/02 51 Obang Jamoh petitioner No. 51 150 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII 1/5/02 52 Lum Paron petitioner No. 52 151 H/Skilled Wireman VI 5/5/02 53 Kaman Yomso petitioner No. 53 158 H/Skilled M/Reader VII passed 9/9/02 54 Santosh Das petitioner No. 54 162 H/Skilled Lineman V 21/11/02 55 Akang Yaro petitioner No. 55 163 H/Skilled Wireman Nil 29/11/02 56 Olak Komde petitioner No.56 166 H/Skilled M/Reader V 23/12/02 57 Omoty Tayeng petitioner No. 57 167 H/Skilled M/Reader VI 21/12/02 58 Dubang Tekseng petitioner No. 58 168 H/Skilled Lineman V 2/1/2003 59 MB Thapa petitioner No. 59 169 H/Skilled M/Reader X 10/1/03 60 Gidang Panggam petitioner No. 60 170 H/Skilled Lineman V 20/1/03 61 Orik Yaro petitioner No. 61 171 H/Skilled Lineman VI 31/1/03 62 Bona Pertin petitioner No. 62 172 H/Skilled M/Reader XII passed 1/2/03 63 Papi Siboh petitioner No. 63 174 H/Skilled Mali Nil 6/2/03 64 Ajit Pradhan petitioner No. 64 179 H/Skilled Lineman VI 21/3/03 65 Dongot Badu petitioner No. 65 182 H/Skilled M/Reader X passed 13/5/03 66 Duman Libang petitioner No. 66 185 H/Skilled M/Reader VII 1/6/03 67 Kadum Boko petitioner No. 67 187 H/Skilled Lineman V 9/6/03 68 Ambeng Jopir petitioner No. 68 188 H/Skilled m/Reader VI 21/6/03 69 Augusto Thakuri petitioner No. 69 194 H/Skilled Wireman VII 18/8/03 70 Duyang Yao petitioner No. 70 196 H/Skilled M/Reader V 1/9/2003 71 Tapak Taga petitioner No. 71 198 H/Skilled Lineman VIII 21/9/03 72 Amrit Rai petitioner No. 72 200 H/Skilled Wireman V 1/10/03 73 Raju Dorjee petitioner No. 73 201 H/Skilled M/Reader X 1/10/03 74 Otin Panyang petitioner No. 74 202 H/Skilled Carpenter V 1/10/03 75 SB Mukhya petitioner No. 75 203 H/Skilled Carpenter Nil 12/10/03 76 Nyapi Payum petitioner No. 76 204 H/Skilled M/Reader IV 27/10/03 77 Tobing Lego petitioner No. 77 205 H/Skilled Lineman V 27/10/03 78 Okyam Panyang petitioner No. 78 206 H/Skilled Peon Nil 27/10/03 79 Omoti Peyang petitioner No. 79 211 H/Skilled M/Reader V 21/1/04 80 Taluram Gour petitioner No. 80 216 H/Skilled LT Lineman V 1/6/04 81 Binod Kumar Sodai petitioner No. 81 218 H/Skilled M/Reader X and ITI 5/7/04 82 Ribika Tapno petitioner No. 82 220 H/Skilled M/Reader Nil 1/8/04 83 Diku Jijong petitioner No. 83 225 H/Skilled LT Lineman VIII 1/11/04 84 Dumten Libang petitioner No. 84 235 H/Skilled Lineman V 21/11/06 85 Nup Paron petitioner No. 85 237 H/Skilled LT Lineman V 1/1/2007 86 Osong Paron petitioner No. 86 242 H/Skilled Wireman VI 21/5/07 87 Omem Apum petitioner No. 87 244 H/Skilled C/Operator X passed 10/7/07 88 Pritima Gogoi petitioner No. 88 248 H/Skilled M/Reader V 13/9/07 89 Marto Ziro petitioner No. 89 250 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII 5/10/07 90 Raju Sing petitioner No. 90 251 H/Skilled LT Lineman V 21/10/07 91 Hyunyo Yopi petitioner No. 91 253 H/Skilled HT Lineman VII 11/12/07 92 PK Dey petitioner No. 92 262 H/Skilled Wielder VIII 20/10/08 93 Mary Borang petitioner No. 93 288 H/Skilled M/Reader VIII 26/12/09 The appointment of respondents No. 6 to 12 made on different dates as casual employees, have also been indicated in Paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition, in the following manner: 94 Respondent No. 6 55 H/Skilled M/Reader X Passed 1/5/1996 95 Respondent No. 7 112 H/Skilled M/Reader XII Passed 12/9/99 96 Respondent No. 8 154 H/Skilled M/Reader XII Passed 24/5/02 97 Respondent No. 9 230 H/Skilled C/Operator X Passed 21/5/05 98 Respondent No. 10 240 H/Skilled M/Reader X Passed 21/1/07 94 Respondent No. 11 274 H/Skilled C/Operator XII Passed 21/07/09 94 Respondent No. 12 281 H/Skilled C/Operator XII Passed 12/11/09 100 Respondent No. 13 --- ---- --- -- -- The private respondent No. 13 who is stated to have been appointed as W/C employee though no particulars including the date of appointment of respondent No. 13 as casual employee, have been indicated in the writ petition, the petitioners challenges the appointment of respondent No. 13 as W/C employee on the ground that the name of respondent No. 13 was not reflected in the seniority list of the casual employees maintained by the Executive Engineer, Yingkiong Electrical Division The petitioners, therefore, contends that the private respondents No. 6 to 13 not being the senior-most among the casual employees under the Yingkiong Electrical Division, the respondents No. 6 to 13 could not have been appointed as W/C employees in supersession of the writ petitioners many of whom are much senior to the private respondents No. 6 to 13. 3. Mr. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trade test held by the respondent authorities, as indicated in their affidavit-in-opposition, has not been done in accordance with the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, and Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004, governing the method of recruitment/filling up of W/C employees in the Department of Power. Mr. Picha, learned counsel, by referring to the Regulatory Scheme, dated 9.12.2004, contends that 30% of the promotional quota of W/C employees of each Division, is required to be filled-up, by a Trade Test Board, headed by the Executive Engineer with two Assistant Engineers, as members, on merit-cum-seniority basis as per the procedures already described under paragraphs No. 4 to 14 in the Notification/Memorandum, dated 1st November, 1996, by drawing the seniority list. Mr. Picha, further contends that paragraphs No. 4 to 14 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, does not prescribe any educational qualification such as matriculation/Class-X passed, for appointment as W/C as well as for participation in a trade test for appointment as a W/C employee. What the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, prescribes is that, matriculate and above(10th and above) shall carry a grace mark of 10 marks; likewise, 8th pass and above but not 10th pass, 5th pass and above but not 8th pass; Class-V and below, would carry grace marks of 8, 5 and 0, respectively. Mr. Picha, also contends that calling of the casual employees from the two disciplines i.e. Meter Reader and Computer Operator, who are matriculates and above, is contrary to the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, and therefore, the restricted calling of only those casual employees who have passed Class-X, by the respondent authorities for participation in the trade test, in question, is illegal. Mr. Picha, therefore, contends that even if the restricted calling of the casual employees from amongst the Meter Reader and Computer Operator, is held to be the correct way of allowing restricted participation by the respondent authorities, there are many other Meter Readers and Computer Operators, who were not called for the trade test held by the respondent authorities. The petitioners No. 4 & 31, who are both casual Computer Operators, were not called for participation in the trade test whereas petitioner No. 4 is Class-XII passed casual employee and the petitioner No. 31 is a Class-V passed casual employee. The petitioners No. 4 & 31, who are both casual Computer Operators, were not called for participation in the trade test whereas petitioner No. 4 is Class-XII passed casual employee and the petitioner No. 31 is a Class-V passed casual employee. Likewise, the petitioners No. 27, 34, 36, 41, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 88, 89 and 93, who are all casual Meter Readers, were not called for the trade test held by the respondent authorities. Out of the petitioners, referred to hereinabove; in the discipline of Meter Reader, the petitioner No. 46, 59 and 73, are stated to be Class-X passed employees. Mr. Picha, learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, contends that selection trade test held by the respondent authorities on 25.3.2013, without affording equal opportunity of participation to these writ petitioners, mentioned-above, is highly illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. The State Respondents No. 1 to 5, have filed their counter affidavit. By filing their counter affidavit, the State Respondents contends that the post of W/C employees are filled-up in the Department of Power, by following the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Power, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE(P)EWC/V/1/96/6331-46 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) as well as the Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004, issued by the Chief Engineer(T&D), Department of Power, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE(T&D)EWC/V/21/7973-91(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). The State Respondents further contends that though there are several trades of W/C employees in the Yingkiong Electrical Division, yet, the W/C employees for Meter Reader and Computer Operator were filled-up as there was an acute shortage of Meter Reader and Computer Operator in view of introduction of IT based energy meters and computers. Therefore, the respondent authorities felt it more expedient and necessary to appoint/promote work charged Meter Readers and Computer Operators, for which, a decision was taken by the authorities concerned to fill-up the vacant posts of W/C employees from the disciplines of Meter Reader and Computer Operator, alone. Therefore, the respondent authorities felt it more expedient and necessary to appoint/promote work charged Meter Readers and Computer Operators, for which, a decision was taken by the authorities concerned to fill-up the vacant posts of W/C employees from the disciplines of Meter Reader and Computer Operator, alone. In pursuance thereof, call letters were issued to various casual employees employed as Meter Readers and Computer Operators, who were Matriculates, to participate in a trade test held on 25.03.2013 for the purpose of appointment of W/C employees in the aforesaid two disciplines which included petitioners No. 11, 37, 42, 47, 62, 65 & 81 who were casual Meter Readers and also petitioners No. 18 & 87, who were casual Computer Operators. All the candidates including the petitioners referred to hereinabove, who were issued with the call letters, participated in the trade test as a result of which, the appointments of private respondents No. 6 to 12, have been made as W/C Meter Readers and Computer Operators, respectively. As far as private respondent No. 13 is concerned, it is stated by the State Respondents in paragraph No. 8 of their counter affidavit, that the appointment of Respondent No. 13 as W/C Computer Operator, was made on ad-hoc basis only for a period of 6 months with the approval of Chief Engineer(P), CEZ, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE(P)CEZ/Estt-5/EWC/2012-13/1433, dated 26.03.2013. The State Respondents, therefore, contends that as all the matriculates/Class-X passed Computer Operators and Meter Readers serving as casual employees including the petitioners, referred to hereinabove; having been allowed to participate in the trade test, there is no illegality in the appointment made to the Respondents No. 6 to 12 on the basis of the trade test held on 25.03.2013. 5. Mr. Perme, learned standing counsel, Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, submits that as all the eligible casual employees, in other words, all casual employees who were Class-X passed or matriculates, were called for the trade test; denial of equal opportunity of participation to only casual employees or for that matter, the petitioners, herein, does not arise and the respondent authorities having held the trade test on 25.03.2013, by affording equal opportunity of all the eligible casual employees in the Meter Reader and Computer Operator disciplines(class-X passed/matriculates); no fault can be found in the appointment of private respondents No. 6 to 12. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Perme, learned standing counsel, further submits that private respondent No. 13 was given direct appointment as W/C employee for a period of 6 months on the approval of the Chief Engineer(P), CEZ, Itanagar, dated 26.03.2013. The learned standing counsel, therefore, fairly submits that no selection process was undertaken before the Respondent No. 13 was appointed as a W/C employee. 7. The private respondents No. 6 to 13 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, taking a similar stand as that of the State Respondents in their counter affidavit filed. 8. Mr. Panging, learned counsel representing private respondents No. 6 to 13, while adopting the stand taken by State Respondents No. 1 to 5 in their counter affidavit and the contentions raised by Mr. Perme, learned standing counsel, Department of Power; submits that though the trade test may not have been held strictly in accordance with the Notification/Regulatory Scheme referred to hereinabove, which governs the field for filling-up of the post of W/C employees, yet, the said Notification having not been issued in the name of Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, would be, at best, in the nature of an advisory and not binding on the respondent authorities, it being merely a guideline; the respondent authorities would be at liberty to deviate from the said guideline in appropriate cases if the authorities are of such opinion. 9. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the contesting parties and also perused the materials made available on record. 10. As the appointment of private Respondents No. 6 to 13 as W/C Meter Readers and Computer Operators, is under challenge, it would be apposite to set-out as to how the W/C employees are appointed in the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 11. From the counter affidavit filed by State respondents No. 1 to 5, it is noticed that the W/C employees in the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are appointed in terms of the Regulatory Scheme, dated 9.12.2004, issued by the Chief Engineer(T&D), Department of Power, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE(T&D)EWC/V/21/7973-91 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and Notification, dated 01.11.1996 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Power, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE (P) EWC/V/1/96/6331-46(Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). 12. No. CE(T&D)EWC/V/21/7973-91 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and Notification, dated 01.11.1996 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Power, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE (P) EWC/V/1/96/6331-46(Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). 12. Regulatory Scheme, dated 9.12.2004, and Notification, dated 1.11.1996, referred to hereinabove, are reproduced herein below, for ready reference: "Government of Arunachal Pradesh Office of the Chief Engineer (T&D): Department of Power Vidyut Bhawan, Itanagar - 791111 No. CE(T&D)/EWC/V/21 Dated Itanagar the Dec. 2004. Regulatory Scheme The Department of Power has inherited numbers of Work Charged Staff when it was separated from Public Works Department in 1992. Central Public Works Department yardstick did not cover many works of the present Department of Power because Central Public Works Department has coverage of works limited to Colony Electrification and Building Wiring, Transmission, Distribution, Generation of Power, and allied works involving the business of power are the main works of the present Power Development. Therefore, due to exigencies of works, Work Charged establishment has grown over the years but without coverage of a required yardstick. A guiding notification attempting to regulate the system was issued by the Department vide No. CE(P)/EWC/V/1/96/6331-46 dated 1st Nov. 1996, yet, it needed further modification as experienced. It was also felt that a control mechanism to regulate the Work Charged establishment in the Department fearing over staffing and financial hardship was necessary. A memorandum in partial modification of the above notification was issued on 25th June 2004, but could not be implemented owing to a Govt, ban on all appointments as a matter of policy. Meanwhile, Rural Works Department, another Department of the State had to adopt a "Retrenchment Scheme" on the intervention of the judiciary. Many of the casual employees have approached Hon'ble Guwahati High Court praying for the Rural Works Department Scheme. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has issued numbers of orders, directing the State respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners under some schemes, the State Government may consider deem fit as the Department of Power cannot make a retrenchment scheme. The Work Charged Staffs are not governed by the General Service Rules as they are treated as Industrial Workers and their services are therefore not regulated under regular service rules/laws. Their retrenchments are also regulated under Industrial Laws. Therefore, the Department cannot enforce the regular service rules and laws over the Work Charged staff. The Work Charged Staffs are not governed by the General Service Rules as they are treated as Industrial Workers and their services are therefore not regulated under regular service rules/laws. Their retrenchments are also regulated under Industrial Laws. Therefore, the Department cannot enforce the regular service rules and laws over the Work Charged staff. Central Public Works Department Code and Rules framed under these legal frameworks govern the Work Charged staffs in the Department. Therefore, following regulatory guidelines shall be followed to deal with the whole matter of Work Charged establishment in Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh including that of petitioners for consideration under these guidelines wherever Central Public Works Department Code does not cover regulatory provisions. 1. There are four levels of posts in W/C establishment as shown in Annexure-A as under: a) Casual Labours b) Group D posts in pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 c) Group C1 posts in pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-804590 d) Group C2 posts in pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 2. Direct recruitment quota in Group D to Group C shall be as follows:- a) Group D 30% b) Group C1 25% c) Group C2 20% 3. Seniority list of all categories of W/C posts shall be maintained at Divisional and Circle Levels. 4. The numbers of post held as on 31st March 2003 has been treated as the sanctioned strength of the Department till an approved yardstick is in operation. Vacancies fallen including that of casual staff born under W/C establishment shall be counted with effect from 1st April 2003. 5. All promotions from casual to Group D shall be made as under:- a). 30% of the promotion quota of W/C employees of each Division, shall be selected by a Test Trade Board, headed by the Executive Engineer with two Assistant Engineers, as members, on merit-cum-seniority basis as per the procedures already described under paragraphs No. 4 to 14 in the Memorandum, dated 1st November, 1996, by drawing the seniority list. b). Another 50% of the promotion quota shall be selected by a Trade Test Board headed by Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineers as members as per procedure mentioned at 5(a) above. c).The remaining 20% shall be kept vacant every year till the overall strength is reassessed and appropriate decision is taken as per a yardstick which would be prepared and got approved from Govt, within 3(three) years. 6. c).The remaining 20% shall be kept vacant every year till the overall strength is reassessed and appropriate decision is taken as per a yardstick which would be prepared and got approved from Govt, within 3(three) years. 6. All promotions from Group D to C1 to C2 shall be made as follows: a). 30% of the promotion quota shall be filled-up on the basis of seniority subject to fitness to be decided by a Trade Test Board, headed by Executive Engineer as per the procedure mentioned at 5(a) above. b). The remaining 70% of the promotion quota shall be filled-up by selection by a Trade Test Board headed by Superintending Engineer as per procedure mentioned at 5 (a) above. 7. Number of vacancies to be filled-up by promotion shall require prior approvals from the Chief Engineer by submitting details of vacancies and post held in each Division as per format in Annexure-B on annual basis. 8. All promotions shall be effected by Superintending Engineer as per selections made by the Executive Engineers and the Superintending Engineers. 9. 75% vacancies under direct recruitment quota in Group D, C1 and C2 shall be filled up by Superintending Engineer with prior approvals of Chief Engineer after conduct of Trade Test for technical posts and Viva Voce for Non-Technical Posts. Balance 25% shall be kept vacant of which 5% shall be reserved against Compensatory or Handicap quota. 10. Vacancies in casual roll shall be filled up as under:- a) 25% by Assistant Engineer without approval of higher authority. b) 25% with prior approval of Executive Engineer. c) 25% with prior approval of Superintending Engineer. d) 25% kept vacant every year till the strength is re-assessed and appropriate decision is taken by the Chief Engineer. e) Short duration enrollment for specific projects or emergency works, prior approval of the numbers of labour and time period of engagement shall be required from Chief Engineer. 11. All kinds of ad-hoc promotions and appointments, prior approvals of the State Government shall be required. 12. All Divisions shall submit an annual report on vacancies and numbers of staff strength including casual staff in the month of April of the following year as per formats in Annexure-B and C. 13. No new creation of W/C posts shall be made till a new yardstick is framed and notified by the Govt. 14. 12. All Divisions shall submit an annual report on vacancies and numbers of staff strength including casual staff in the month of April of the following year as per formats in Annexure-B and C. 13. No new creation of W/C posts shall be made till a new yardstick is framed and notified by the Govt. 14. All W/C post held on ad-hoc basis shall be treated at vacant as on 1st April 2003. However, the person holding the post on ad-hoc basis shall continue to hold the post on ad-hoc basis till they qualify and get selected in due course of time in subsequent selections. 15. The 1st annual report for the year 2003-04 (Opening of 1st April 2003) may be submitted within 15 days of issue of these guidelines. 16. The memorandum does not lift the ban imposed by the State Government. However, process of detailed exercise shaft be done by all concerned and these guidelines will automatically become operative immediately on lifting of the ban order issued by Govt. Vide No. GA-15/2003 dated 30.05.2003 and specific orders issued by Chief Engineer under these guidelines. 17. Any shortfall of labour in any of the Sub-Divisions or Divisions shall be filled up by transfer under the order of Superintending Engineer within the Circle and Chief Engineer for intra-circle re-deployment of W/C staff intimating the relevant date of seniority. 18. These memorandum is aimed at reducing the departmental staff and take up maintenance works through AMCs, etc., in future. 19. All other guidelines under Para 4 to 14 contained in the O.M. No. CE(P)/EWC/V/1/96/6331-46 dated 1.11.1996, which are not contradicted with by these Clauses, shall remain in force. However, the Chief Engineer (T&D) shall be referred for interpretations of any confusions or ambiguities that may crop up.(Copy of O.M. enclosed) 20. Central Public Works Department Code, Manual and rules unless revised or superseded by the orders of State Govt, shall continue to be the referral code and guide for regulating Work Charged establishment in the Department of Power. Sd/- Chief Engineer (T&D) Department of Power Itanagar-791111. No. CE(T&D)/EWC/V/21/7973-91 Dated Itanagar the 9th Dec. Central Public Works Department Code, Manual and rules unless revised or superseded by the orders of State Govt, shall continue to be the referral code and guide for regulating Work Charged establishment in the Department of Power. Sd/- Chief Engineer (T&D) Department of Power Itanagar-791111. No. CE(T&D)/EWC/V/21/7973-91 Dated Itanagar the 9th Dec. 2004." "Government of Arunachal Pradesh Office of the Chief Engineer (Power & Department of Power Itanagar-791111) Notification In the absence of proper guidelines in the CPWD Manual for holding of Trade Test for recruitment and promotion for Casual Workers to W/C Cadres, from lower grade of W/C Cadres to higher grade of W/C Cadres respectively, it has been decided and hereby notified in all the Circles/Divisions under the Department of Power. 1. Separate technical sanction should be obtained from the Superintending Engineer for the W/C posts to be created or required against maintenance works based on technically sanctioned maintenance Estimates following yardstick as per para 1.03 of CPWD Manual Vol. 111. A format is enclosed herewith for sending proposal for technical sanction of W/C Estt. as per Annexure-I, proper justification should be given for the posts shown in Column (3) of the Annexure-I. Each category of posts should be supported by Schedule of Estimation as justification to the proposal given as per yardstick or analysis in case of absence of yardstick. 2. In order to regulate any steep financial burden, on the Divisions, there is a need to control the recruitment of any backlog vacancies. Therefore, prior approval should be obtained from the concerned Superintending Engineer so as to decide upon the number of vacant posts trade-wise to be filled up during the recruitment year. Accordingly, a format is enclosed herewith for sending proposal for requisition for recruitment and promotion through Trade Test as per Annexure-II. 3. The Executive Engineers should maintain the seniority list of casual workers trade-wise. 4. Individual casual workers should be trade tested on the subject/trade where the candidate has gained efficacy. 5. Recruitment process should be strictly followed on the basis of Recruitment Rules of CPWD till separate Recruitment Rules of W/C Establishment for Department of Power is notified. 6. Reservation for all categories of posts for APST should be adopted strictly as per provisions of various rules of Govt, notified from time to time. 7. 5. Recruitment process should be strictly followed on the basis of Recruitment Rules of CPWD till separate Recruitment Rules of W/C Establishment for Department of Power is notified. 6. Reservation for all categories of posts for APST should be adopted strictly as per provisions of various rules of Govt, notified from time to time. 7. The trade test must be held every year for all who become eligible within the Zone of consideration. The criteria or eligibility in number of years in casual service shall be decided by the Executive Engineer on the basis of vacancy and the principle of "zone of consideration' with a minimum 2 years qualifying service. The abstract of zone of consideration is appeared in Annexure-III. 8. The trade test shall have two parts viz.:- a) Personality Test 100 marks b) Practical Test 100 marks Total 200 marks 9. Only those who secured 50 marks and above in the viva voce test, should be called for practical test. In the case of APST candidates, such qualifying marks is relaxable to 40 marks. 10. i) The personality test shall consists of general intelligence test, general awareness, experience evaluation, qualification assessment, etc.. ii) The practical test shall consist of actual demonstration of technical works in the trade in which the candidates may be asked to trouble shoot/diagnose & rectify/repair any defects/damages of appliances & apparatus in use in the Trade. 11. Out of 100 marks in personality test, 50 marks shall be purely awarded as grace-marks to allow greater representation of more experienced and qualified candidates on the select list. 12. The break-up of maximum marks distribution in personality test shall be as follows:- I. Personality Test. a) Viva-voce(Maximum) i) General Awareness 10 marks ii) Trade/Technical Knowledge 30 marks iii) Personality 10 marks 50 marks b) Grace marks (Maximum) i) Seniority evaluation 30 marks ii) General Qualification 10 marks iii) Technical Qualification 10 marks 50 marks Total 100 marks II) Seniority evaluation shall carry 30 marks as grace marks and the marks obtained shall be worked out considering 30 marks for the senior most candidate and the next junior candidates will be given in proportion to their No. of years served as casual (including ad-hoc service) in the Power Department, the number of years being rounded off to the nearest years. III) The general qualification shall carry 10 marks as grace marks and the break-up of the marks obtained shall be as follows:- a) Matriculate and above (10th and above) 10 marks b) 8th pass and above but not 10th pass 8 marks c) 5th pass and above but not 8th pass 5 marks d) Class V and below 0 marks IV) The Technical qualification shall carry 10 marks as grace marks as per the following slab:- 1. 3 years Diploma or equivalent and above 10 marks 2. Certificate/Diploma 2 years and below but not below 1 years or equivalent 7 marks 3. Below 1 years course licence or certificate or equivalent 5 marks Notes:- In case, a candidate possesses 1, 2 & 3 or 1 & 2 or 1 & 3 or 2 & 3 simultaneously, he/she would be entitled to get the marks of the highest ranked certificate only. 13. The eligible candidates for the promotion from lower grade W/C Cadres to higher grade W/C Cadres will be called for personality test followed by practical test on prescribed topics as given in Recruitment Rules. There shall be no grace marking in the case of promotion from W/C grade to higher grade. 14. The break-up of the marks for promotional Trade Test will be as follows:- I. For technical proficiency through practical trade test 80 marks II. For general intelligence through viva voce test 20 marks Total 100 marks 15. The appointment should be made trade-wise in order of merit as per the result of Trade Test in W/C Khalasi grade by Executive Engineer within the number of posts approved for recruitment during the year (Ref. Rule 2). 16. The result of the Trade Test for promotion for W/C group D to D or C should be submitted to the Office of the Superintending Engineer within one month from the date of holding Trade Test. 17. The Trade Test of Direct recruit posts in W/C Establishment shall be held at Superintending Engineer office only. 18. The Executive Engineer shall not make any ad-hoc appointment in any category except in the case of casual enrollment within the sanctioned strength. 19. Appointment to W/C Khalasi as per merit ranked in the Trade Test from casual roll, shall not be treated as Direct Recruitment. 20. The Executive Engineer shall not make any kind of relaxation while making any appointment as W/C Khalasi. 21. 19. Appointment to W/C Khalasi as per merit ranked in the Trade Test from casual roll, shall not be treated as Direct Recruitment. 20. The Executive Engineer shall not make any kind of relaxation while making any appointment as W/C Khalasi. 21. The categories of posts indicating the scales of pay are listed in Annexure IV & V and no post(s) other than those listed in Annexures shall be incorporated in maintenance estimates henceforth. The post(s) not listed but in existence shall be discontinued gradually, immediately either due to superannuation, resignation or termination of the incumbent holding the post in due course of time. Any new category of post(s) which become necessary as per the nature of Job in W/C establishment shall be included in the list as and when such requests are received from the Divisional Offices and found justified. Sd/- (Er. A. Perme) Chief Engineer(Power) Department of Power Itanagar. No. CE(P)/EWC/V/1/96/6331-46 Dated Ita. 1st Nov. 96." 13. On perusal of Clause 1 of the Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004, it appears that there are four levels of posts in W/C establishment which are as under: a. Casual Labour b. Group D posts in pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200 c. Group C1 posts in pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 d. Group D posts in pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 14. Clause 5 of the Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004, provides that all promotion from casual labour to Group D, shall be made as under: a). 30% of the promotion quota of W/C employees of each Division, shall be selected by a Trade Test Board, headed by the Executive Engineer with two Assistant Engineers, as members, on merit-cum-seniority basis as per the procedures described in paragraphs No. 4 to 14 in the Memorandum, dated 1st November, 1996, by drawing the seniority list. b) Another 50% of the promotion quota shall be selected by a Trade Test Board headed by Superintending Engineers and two Executive Engineers as members as per procedure mentioned at 5(a) above. c).The remaining 20% shall be kept vacant every year till the overall strength is re-assessed and appropriate decision is taken as per a yardstick which would be prepared and got approved from Govt, within 3(three) years. 15. c).The remaining 20% shall be kept vacant every year till the overall strength is re-assessed and appropriate decision is taken as per a yardstick which would be prepared and got approved from Govt, within 3(three) years. 15. In the instant case, as the petitioners who are all casual employees, have challenged the promotion given to private Respondents No. 6 to 13 as W/C Meter Readers and Computer Operators which are Group D posts, who, till the other day; were also casual employees like the petitioners, working at Yingkiong Electrical Division; Clause 5(a) of the Regulatory Scheme, dated 9.12.2004, would be relevant which provides for 30% of the promotion quota of each Division, be filled-up through a trade test held by the trade test Board headed by the Executive Engineer with two Assistant Engineers, as members, on merit-cum-seniority basis as per the procedures described under paragraphs No. 4 to 14 in the Memorandum, dated 1st November, 1996, by drawing the seniority list. 16. The Notification, dated 01.11.1996, which prescribes the criteria of selection for promotion from casual employees to W/C employees, may now be noticed. 17. Clause 4 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that individual casual workers should be trade tested on the subject/trade where the candidate has gained efficacy. 18. Clause 7 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that trade test be held every year for all who have become eligible and within the Zone of consideration. The criteria or eligibility in number of years in casual service shall be decided by the Executive Engineer on the basis of vacancy and the principle of "zone of consideration" with a minimum 2 years qualifying service. 19. Clause 8 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that trade test shall have two parts viz.:-- a) Personality Test 100 marks b) Practical Test 100 marks Total 200 marks 20. Clause 9 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that only those candidates who had secured 50 marks and above in the viva voce test would be called for the practical test and in the case of APST candidates, such qualifying mark is relaxable upto 40 marks. 21. Clause 9 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that only those candidates who had secured 50 marks and above in the viva voce test would be called for the practical test and in the case of APST candidates, such qualifying mark is relaxable upto 40 marks. 21. Clause 10 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that the personality test shall consists of general intelligence test, general awareness, experience evaluation, qualification assessment, etc., and the practical test shall consist of actual demonstration of technical works in the trade in which the candidates may be asked to trouble shoot/diagnose & rectify/repair any defects/damages of appliances & apparatus in use in the Trade. 22. Clause 11 of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that out of 100 marks in personality test; 50 marks shall be purely awarded as grace-marks to allow greater representation of more experienced and qualified candidates on the select list. 23. Clause 12(1) of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides the break-up of maximum marks distribution in personality test as follows:- I) Personality Test, a) Viva-voce (Maximum) i) General Awareness 10 marks ii) Trade/Technical Knowledge 30 marks iii) Personality 10 marks 50 marks c) Grace marks (Maximum) (iv) Seniority evaluation 30 marks (v) General Qualification 10 marks (vi) Technical Qualification 10 marks 50 marks Total 100 marks 24. Clause 12(11) of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that seniority evaluation shall carry 30 marks as grace marks and the marks obtained shall be worked out considering 30 marks for the senior-most candidate and the next junior candidates will be given in proportion to their No. of years served as casual (including ad-hoc service) in the Power Department, the number of years being rounded off to the nearest years. 25. Clause 12(III) of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that general qualification shall carry 10 marks as grace marks and the break-up of the marks obtained shall be as follows:- a) Matriculate and above (10th and above) 10 marks b) 8th pass and above but not 10th pass 8 marks c) 5th pass and above but not 8th pass 5 marks d) Class V and below 0 marks 26. Clause 12(IV) of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that Technical Qualification shall carry 10 marks as grace marks as per the following slab:- 1. 3 years Diploma or equivalent and above 10 marks 2. Clause 12(IV) of the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, provides that Technical Qualification shall carry 10 marks as grace marks as per the following slab:- 1. 3 years Diploma or equivalent and above 10 marks 2. Certificate/Diploma 2 years and below but not below 1 years or equivalent 7 marks 3. Below 1 years course licence or certificate or equivalent 5 marks 27. Thus, it is seen from the criteria of selection for appointment from casual employees of W/C Group D mentioned in the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, that individual casual employees are required to be trade tested on the subject/trade where the candidate has gained efficacy on the basis of personality test and practical test comprising 100 marks each, which would be inclusive of marks to be awarded for the seniority position of the casual employees, general educational qualification of the casual employee and the technical qualification that the causal employee possesses. 28. In the instant case, it is noticed from the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents No. 1 to 5, that the trade test was held on 25.03.2013, for selection of W/C employees in the trades i.e. Meter Reader and Computer Operator. The respondent authorities, therefore, issued call letters to only those casual employees who were in the above trades/disciplines of Meter Reader and Computer Operator with educational qualification of Matriculate, whereafter, the Respondents No. 6, 7, 8 & 10, were selected and appointed as Meter Readers and Respondents No. 9, 11 & 12, were selected and appointed as Computer Operators. 29. It is also noticed that in the trade test held by the respondent authorities, the petitioners No. 11, 37, 42, 47, 62, & 81, who were casual Meter Readers and petitioners No. 18 & 87, who were casual Computer Operators, were also called for the trade test. 30. What now requires to be examined, is whether the trade test held on 25.03.2013 by the respondent authorities leading to the selection and appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 12 has been held in accordance with the selection procedure and criteria provided under the Regulatory Scheme, 9.12.2004, and the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, or not. 31. 30. What now requires to be examined, is whether the trade test held on 25.03.2013 by the respondent authorities leading to the selection and appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 12 has been held in accordance with the selection procedure and criteria provided under the Regulatory Scheme, 9.12.2004, and the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, or not. 31. As have been noticed hereinabove, in the method of the selection and selection criteria under the above Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004, as well as the Notification, dated 01.11.1996; it is found that though individual casual workers have been provided to be trade tested on the subject/trade where the candidate has gained efficiency, it is not provided in the Notification that only the matriculates and above in the respective trades/disciplines would be called for the trade test for selection and appointment as W/C employees. 32. What is rather prescribed in the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, in respect of the educational qualification is that the candidates would be awarded grace marks on the basis of the educational qualification like if the candidate is matriculate and above, he or she should be awarded 10 marks; if the candidate is matriculate and above, he or she should be awarded 8 marks; if the candidate is matriculate and above, he or she should be awarded 5 marks; and if the candidate is matriculate and above, he or she shall not be awarded with any marks. 33. What further follows therefrom, therefore, is that all casual employees, whenever, a trade test is held for appointment of W/C employees in their respective trade/discipline, such a casual employee would be eligible and qualified to participate in the trade test irrespective of his/her educational qualification, subject to fulfilling the other prescribed criteria’s. 34. Since the trade test held on 25.03.2013, leading to the selection and appointment of private Respondent No. 6 to 12 was restricted to only those casual employees of Meter Reader and Computer Operator, having educational qualification of matriculate and above, it must be held that those casual employees who are not matriculates, have been denied participation in the trade test held on 25.03.2013, contrary to the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, which holds the field for selection and appointment of W/C employees. 35. 35. Though the respondent authorities contends that equal opportunity of participation in the trade test held on 25.03.2013 was given to all the eligible casual employees in the respective trades of Meter Reader and Computer Operator, by calling the petitioners No. 18 & 87 for the trade test of Computer Operator and petitioners No. 11, 37, 42, 47, 62, & 81, for the trade test of Meter Reader, yet, it is found that the petitioners No. 27, 34, 36, 41, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 88, 89 & 93 who are all casual Meter Readers, were not called for the trade test and petitioners No. 4 & 31, who are casual Computer Operators, were also not called for the trade test, held on 25.03.2013. 36. Though selection cannot be confined to matriculate casual employees, as have been noted hereinabove, it may also be noticed here that the respondent authorities have not called for the trade test, in the trade test held, even to the petitioners No. 11, 42, 46, 47, 59, 73 & 81 (all Meter Readers) who are stated to be matriculates and petitioners No. 37 & 62(both Meter Readers), both Class-XII passed and also petitioner No. 4(Computer Operator), stated to be class-XII passed, which fact, the State respondents have not denied. Thus, the Regulatory Scheme, dated 9.12.2004, and Notification, dt. 1.11.1996, which governs the field for filling-up of W/C employees, having not prescribed matriculation as the educational qualification required for participation in the trade test for filling up the W/C posts, the trade test held on 25.03.2013, restricting the participation amongst the casual employees who are matriculates, alone, would have to be held as illegal for having denied equal opportunity of participation to rest of the casual employees in the trades of Meter Reader and Computer Operator, as indicated hereinabove, from participating in the trade test held on 25.3.2013 for selection and appointment of W/C Meter Reader and Computer Operator, which would be in violation of the right of equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 43, had held, as under: ".......Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee....." 37. As the trade test held on 25.03.2013 for selection and appointment of W/C Meter readers and Computer Operators by the respondents in the present case, have been held to be in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners no. 27, 34, 36, 41, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 88, 89 & 93(Meter Readers) and petitioners no. 27, 34, 36, 41, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 88, 89 & 93(Meter Readers) and petitioners no. 4 & 31 (Computer Operators) under article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, no further determination is deemed necessary as to whether the Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004 and the Notification, dated 01.11.1996, under which the trade test was purported to be held, was issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, or not; and, if not issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, would it be permissible for the State authorities to deviate from the Regulatory Scheme and Notification, referred to hereinabove, as contended by the learned counsel for the private Respondents, for the reason that no action of the State authorities can be validated by the Court if it is found to be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact whether the State authorities were acting in pursuance of the Regulatory Scheme and Notification, in question, issued either in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, or, otherwise. 38. No action(s) of the State authorities purporting to act either in terms of the Notification issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or otherwise, can receive the approval of this Court if the action(s) complained of the State authorities, are found to be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. So long as the action(s) complained of the State authorities are found to be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it is of no relevance whether the State authorities acted in terms of a Notification, not issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. If the action(s) of the State authorities are found to be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the same would be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India irrespective of the fact as to whether the State authorities acted in terms of the Notification issued in the name of the Governor and under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or otherwise. 39. In respect of the appointment of private Respondent No. 13, in view of the stand taken by the State respondents in the counter affidavit filed to the effect that the Respondent No. 13 was appointed as W/C Computer Operator on ad-hoc basis only for a period of 6 months with the approval of the Chief Engineer(P), CEZ, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide order, dated 26.03.2013, issued under Memo. No. CE (P) CEZ/Estt-5/EWC/2012-13/1433, it is evident that the appointment of Respondent No. 13 as W/C Computer Operator was also made in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India thereby, denying the petitioners who are working as W/C casual computer operators from participating in the selection process for appointment to the post of W/C Computer Operator, had the respondent authorities given them an opportunity for participation for selection and appointment as W/C Computer Operator in the post, now, held by the private Respondent No. 13. 40. In that view of the matter, the initial appointment of private Respondent No. 13 as W/C Computer Operator on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months and if the said Respondent No. 13 is still working as W/C Computer Operator beyond his initial term of appointment for a period of six months, can also not be validated by this Court. 41. In the result, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds. Consequently, the impugned order of appointment, dated 04.04.2013, issued by the Superintending Engineer(E), A.P. Electrical Circle No-II, Department of Power, Pasighat, vide Memo. No. SE/APEC-II/WC-6/2012-13/21-27, appointing the private Respondents No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12, as W/C Meter Readers and W/C Computer Operators as well as the appointment of private Respondent No. 13 as W/C Computer Operator, on ad-hoc basis only for a period of 6 months with the approval of the Chief Engineer(P), CEZ, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. CE(P)CEZ/Estt-5/EWC/2012-13/1433, dated 26.03.2013, and the subsequent extensions of the ad-hoc appointment of Respondent No. 13, thereof, if any, stands set aside and quashed with a further direction to the respondent authorities to fill-up the aforesaid posts of W/C employees in consonance with the scheme of public employment as contemplated under the Constitution of India by affording equal opportunity of participation to all the eligible and qualified candidates. 42. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.