Purnima Das vs District and Sessions Judge, State of Assam

J.N. Sarma, J.—This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 2.5.91 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri terminating the temporary appointment of the Petitioner from the post of L.D. Asstt, of the office of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri, This is Annexure-3 to the Writ application. Annexure-3 to the Writ application reads as follows:

The Temporary appointment of Smti. Pumima Das, L.D. Asstt., office of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri is hereby terminated with immediate effect.

The brief facts are as follows:

That the Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Asstt. on 7.3.91 but released on 3.5.91. The Petitioner thereafter served approximately for a period of 2 years on two occasions in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri. The Petitioner was directed to appear in the written test vide order dated 16.6.87 alongwith the other candidates. However, the service of the Petitioner was not regularised. On 14.3.90, the District & Sessions Judge passed an order that her case would be considered when vacancy would occur in the near future. This was a reply to a representation submitted by the petitioner. This is Annexure-1 to the Writ: application. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again appointed as a Lower Division Asstt on 6.3.91. It was stated in the appointment letter as follows:

The appointment is purely temporary and subject to her qualifying in the test and interview for the post to be held later on in due course. She will have no claim whatsoever for future absorption to the post.

Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 2.5.91 her service was terminated. The allegation of the Petitioner was that her service was terminated as because this order was passed in pursuance of Annexure-4 to the Writ Application i.e. a letter order from the Registrar (I & E), Gauhati High Court.

I have heard Shri D.C. Mahanta, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, nor any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed but the record has been produced before this court.

The appointment of the Petitioner vide Annexure-2 was temporary and it was suited that it will be subject to her qualifying in the test and interview for the post to be held later on in due course. It was further stated that she will have no claim whatsoever for future absorption to the post. The Anncxure-4, the letter from the Registrar, (I & E), Gauhati High Court, was a reminder to the District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri informing that in making appointments he is to comply with the Rule 6 of the Assam District & Sessions Judge establishment Ministerial Service Rules, 1967. A representation was filed by Ajoy Chandra Choudhury, Process Server, for upgradation and promotion to the post of Lower Division Asstt. It was pointed out in this representation that he is eligible to be promoted under the Rules and it was further pointed out in this representation that he is a Scheduled Caste So, under the Rules, he was entitled to be promoted and accordingly he was promoted and the service of the Petitioner was terminated.

The Petitioner by her letter of appointment Annexure-2 to the Writ application did not acquire any indefeasible right to the post. In the letter of appointment itself it was stated that the post is purely temporary and as the Petitioner did not acquire any right to the post and as I find that Shri Ajoy Chandra Choudhury was rightly promoted to the post. Further, Shri Ajoy Chandra Choudhury, the person, who has been promoted and appointed in the post held by the Petitioner has not been made a party in this Writ application.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this Writ application and the same is dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.