Dismissed

Ms Rupa Bora and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Nov 2021WP(C)/6450/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging a resolution to release them from temporary research assistant posts argue for continuation based on promissory estoppel. Court dismisses writ petition, holding appointments were illegal without selection or sanction and scheme expired, so continuation cannot be ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners dismissed from service; writ petition dismissed with no order as to cost.

Ms Rupa Bora and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010179142015

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6450/2015

¶5

MS RUPA BORA and 8 ORS

¶6

D/O. LT. JANESWAR BORA, R/O. D.C. COLONY, DIPHU, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782460.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HILL AREAS DEV. DEPTT., ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GHY.-781006.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P D NAIR Advocate for the Respondent :

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 12-11-2021

¶15

Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Ms. S. Kemprai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5,6,7 and 8.

¶16

The brief case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Research Assistant in the Technical and Research Unit under the Establishment of District Adult Education Officer, Diphu, Karbi Anglong for a period of six months

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

by virtue of appointment orders ranging from 2006 to 2009. Thereafter they continued as such by virtue of different extension orders. Such engagement was discontinued subsequent to resolution, Resolution No. 1, taken in the meeting of the Annual Action Plan for 2014-15 of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council. By the said Resolution No.1, it was resolved to release the petitioners from their engagement after payment of their existing due. The petitioners are aggrieved by such resolution and seeks for writ of certiorari quashing such resolution and all subsequent actions.

¶19

The petitioner contends that though their appointments were temporary,the Government of Assam as well as Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council has their approval for such appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents authority had offered them employment and had promised them continuous employment. Thus on such unequivocal promise they acted to their detriment working in the said post and did not look for other avenues for employment. Thus the petitioners are contending a case of promissory estoppel.

¶20

The respondents Autonomous Council authoritiey has filed their affidavit in opposition. The respondent authority contends that the petitioners were appointed under a centrally sponsored scheme namely “ Total Literacy Campaign“ on a purely temporary basis for a period of six months w.e.f. the date of joining. Such scheme was executed through the District Adult Education Officer. It is also the contention of the respondents that the petitioners were appointed without any selection process and they were paid minimum initial basic pay since their joining . No documents whatsoever regarding their appointments were maintained in the office. Further no posts were also created by the Government and as such the salaries were paid from the resources meant for Hill Area Grant and from the State plan.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

It is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent Council that in the aforesaid backdrop and circumstances the impugned resolution No. 1 was taken as the fund allocation for development purpose cannot be used for payment of salary to persons engaged under a specific scheme and that too when the Scheme was over and no fund was forthcoming from the Central Government, who sponsored the Scheme in question. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner were not engaged against any sanctioned post. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioners are illegal and without there being any sanction by the authority under the law. Therefore prayer for their continuation cannot be accepted. If such order is passed it will amount to not only imposing burden upon the State exchequer but also shall mean of further continuation of illegalities. The stand taken by the respondent by their affidavit on 24.1.2020 has not been replied or refuted by the writ petitioner.

¶23

From the facts and circumstances aforesaid and material available on record it is irrefutable that the appointments were made without following any due process of law .i.e. without initiation of any selection process. The admitted position is that the appointments were under a specific scheme sponsored by Central Government and was for a specific period. It is stated by the respondent counsel that neither the Department Adult Education is surviving as on date, nor the scheme of Total Literacy Campaign under which the petitioners were appointed are continuing.

¶24

In view of such admitted position, therefore, at this stage, it is not possible to issue any writ for continuation of the petitioners more particularly, in view of the nature of petitioners’ entry into the service, the period of the scheme as stated hereinabove .

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

The decision of the respondent Council not to spend development fund for payment of salary to persons appointed for a limited term under a Scheme without due selection process cannot be faulted with more particularly for the reason that the petitioners initial appointment are de horse the rule and such appointments were for limited period under the centrally sponsored scheme which no more subsists. The petitioners have failed to establish their right for continuation in the post, which is, sine qua non to issue a writ.

¶27

The right of the petitioners under principle of promissory estoppel as pleaded by the petitioner, also cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioners have failed to bring any material on record of any unequivocal promise on the part of the Respondent authority, on the basis of which, the petitioners have acted to their detriment. Further, the principle of promissory estoppel can not be applied in the present facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioners have failed to establish any legal or constitutional right that permits them to continue in their engagements.

¶28

In view of the above discussions and reasons the writ petition is dismissed. However no order as to cost.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Ms Rupa Bora and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Rupa Bora and 8 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braja Gopal Sinha Vs State Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Asma Khatun and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Binoy Kumar Yadav and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

JC-361505L Naib Subedar/Clerk Giasuddin Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shanku Chanda Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Andri Amo Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.