Minati Bora And Ors vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Education Department,

Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None appears for the remaining respondents.

The writ petitioners herein are amongst the 34 candidates who were appointed in the Directorate of SCERT on Ad-hoc basis on different dates

during the year 1996. Although their initial appointments were for 04 months only, yet, their services were extended from time to time and eventually

on the basis of the recommendation made by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 21-08-2004, the services of the petitioners were

regularized w.e.f. 0110-2007. The orders of regularization of their services were issued with the approval of the Finance Department. The grievance

expressed in this writ petition pertains to the date from which the regularization was given effect to.

According to the writ petitioners the order of regularization ought to have been given effect from the date of their initial appointment since such

appointments were made against the sanctioned vacant posts. However, instead of doing so, the effect of the regularization has been given from 01-

10-2007.

Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that the date of regularization has been mentioned as 01-10-2007 only to deprive

the writ petitioners of the benefit of the pension scheme, which was withdrawn with effect from the year 2005.

Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Education Department has produced a copy of the judgment and order dated 29-05-2017 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 63/2013 and the batch of connected writ petitions filed by the similarly situated candidates agitating similar

grievance .

Mr. Ahmed has fairly submitted that the case of his clients would be covered by the aforesaid order dated 29-05-2017 passed by this Court and

therefore, this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the direction contained in the order dated 29-05-2017.

From a perusal of the materials available on record, I find that the order dated 29-052017 was passed in a batch of writ petitions instituted by some

similarly situated candidates belonging to the group of 34 employees who were appointed in the SCERT on Ad-hoc basis and the writ petitioners

herein are also amongst those 34 candidates. The three writ petitions preferred by such candidates were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by

order dated 29-05-2017 by making the following observation and directions:

“21. Accordingly, as the appropriate material is not available before this Court to adjudicate upon as to whether the petitioners were appointed by

following the procedure of advertisement and selection, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Director of SCERT, to make

a factual enquiry as to whether the petitioners were initially appointed by following the procedure of advertisement and selection, or not.

In the event, the Director arrives at a conclusion that the initial appointment of the petitioners were made by following the procedure of

advertisement and selection, appropriate orders shall be passed to grant them their regularization w.e.f., the date of their initial appointment. On the

other hand, if the Director arrives at a conclusion that the initial appointment of the petitioners were not made by following the procedure of

advertisement and selection, the Director may either retain the order dated 04.09.2013 whereby the effect of regularization was given from

27.09.2007, or may on his own discretion prepone the date of giving effect to the regularization to any date prior to it., but in no event shall bring the

effective date of regularization to any date after 27.09.2007.â€​

Learned departmental counsel has submitted that the matter is still under examination by the respondent No. 2 and no final decision has been taken

till date in terms of the order dated 29-05-2017 passed by this Court.

In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the

respondent No. 2 to extend similar consideration to the petitioners in the present case as well in terms of the direction contained in the order dated 29-

05-2017 passed by this Court

   Writ petition stands disposed of.