Partly allowed

The State of Assam and Anr. v. Thaneswar Dutta and 37 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Aug 2022Review.Pet./45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, in a common review order, held that the principle of appointment against sanctioned vacant posts under Uma Devi requires individual factual verification for each petitioner, rejecting a blanket generalization. The court directed the respondents to verify post availability for each specific appointment.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions partly allowed; all petitioners required to submit detailed applications regarding dates, posts, and creation numbers for individual record verification to determine eligibility for r

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Thaneswar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/23

¶2

GAHC010215682021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./52/2022

¶5

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-781006 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19. VERSUS AJIT GOGOI AND 13 ORS. GRADE IV EMPLOYEE POHOMARA HIGH SCHOOL VILL.- BARSARIA GAON P.O.- PAHUMARA DIST.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 2:JITEN GOHAIN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE KADAM HIGH SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- KADAM DIST.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 3:SOMIR KUMAR SUR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GELAKEY HIGH SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- GELAKEY DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 4:KULADHAR GOGOI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE

¶6

Page No.# 2/23

¶7

TRIBENI HIGH SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- NAZIRA DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 5:DEBEN BORAGOHAIN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHIKIMUKH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL.and P.O.- NAZIRA DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 6:TILESWAR DAUTTA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- NAZIRA DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 7:RANJAN KUMAR CHETIA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE JAHANJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL. - JAHANJI MORAN GAON P.O.- JAHANJI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 8:TAIAB ALI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GELEKEY HIGH SCHOOL VILL.- GELAKEY CHUTIA GAON P.O.- GELEPY DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 9:INDRA PANTANTI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GODAPANI HIGH SCHOOL VILL and P.O.- GODAPANI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 10:PRADIP LOHAR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SIMLUGURI HIGH SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- SIMLUGURI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 11:BHABA KANTA KONWAR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE ROHDOI HIGH SCHOOL VILL. and P.O.- DHUPABOR DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶8

Page No.# 3/23

¶9

12:DIMBESWAR DUTTA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHARIALI GIRLS' HIGH SCHOOL VILL.- DERAGHAR SATRA P.O.- MOZERA DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 13:DEBENDRA PATIR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE K.K. PATIR HIGH SCHOOL VILL.- ANNAPUR DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM. 14:DWIPEN BARUA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE DERGAON HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL.- BONGALGAON P.O.- DERGAON DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR. D SAIKIA Advocate for : appearing for AJIT GOGOI AND 13 ORS.

¶10

Linked Case : Review.Pet./53/2022

¶11

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 VERSUS MOHENDRA DAS AND 4 ORS. GRADE IV EMPLOYEE DEKARGAON HIGH SCHOOL. PO TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 4/23

¶13

2:SRI SUBHASH CH SEAL GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NARENGI HIGH SCHOOL NARENGI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 3:SRI PRABIN BORA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE INDRANI DEVI HIGH SCHOOL PO DERGAON DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM 4:SRI DIMBESWAR NEOG GRADE IV EMPLOYEE BARPATRADOLA HIGH SCHOOL KALUGAON DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM 5:SMTI NIRODA GOGOI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SANTAK HIGH SCHOOL PO SANTAK DIST SIVASAGAR ASSAM -----------Advocate for : SC. EDU. Advocate for : appearing for MOHENDRA DAS AND 4 ORS.

¶14

Linked Case : Review.Pet./9/2021

¶15

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. VERSUS GIRIJANANDA GOSWAMI AND 5 ORS. A S/O- SRI PARAMANANDA GOSWAMI R/O- PATACHARKUCHI P.O. PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA

¶16

Page No.# 5/23

¶17

ASSAM PIN- 783126. 2:PUNYA PRAVA DEVI D/O- SRI SISHURAM NATH R/O- BORBHAGIA P.O. CHARAIBAHI P.S. MIKIRBHETA DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM. 3:SUSHIL KUMAR HAZARIKA S/O- LATE RATNA KANTA HAZARIKA R/O- BARANGABARI P.O. KOMORAGURI P.S. AND DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM 4:HIRANYA DAS S/O- GOPIRAM DAS R/O- PUB SALMORA P.O. PHULGURI DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM 5:GANESH HANDIQUE S/O- LATE HARIKANTA HANDIQUE R/O- GELEKY P.O. MICHAJAN DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 6:MOHENDRA HAZARIKA S/O- LATE KHAGESWAR HAZARIKA R/O- VILL. AND P.O. MICHAJAN DIST.- SIVSAGAR ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. Advocate for : MR. R B GOHAIN appearing for GIRIJANANDA GOSWAMI AND 5 ORS. A

¶18

Linked Case : Review.Pet./56/2022

¶19

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶20

Page No.# 6/23

¶21

GUWAHATI-781006

¶22

2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 VERSUS TAYAB ALI AND 2 ORS. GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GELEKY HIGH SCHOOL VILL- GELEKY CHUTIA GAON DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 2:MRS. HIMA BURAGOHAIN CHETIA GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE W/O SRI RANJIT CHETIA SIMALUGURI GIRLS HIGH SECONDARY SCHOOL P.O.-SIMALUGURI DIST-SIVASAGAR ASSAM 3:TILESWAR DUTTA GRADE-IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL AND P.O.-NAZIRA DIST-SIVASAGAR ASSAM P.O.-TEZPUR DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR. D SAIKIA Advocate for : appearing for TAYAB ALI AND 2 ORS.

¶23

Linked Case : Review.Pet./33/2022 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECONDARY DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA

¶24

Page No.# 7/23

¶25

GUWAHATI-19. VERSUS

¶26

THANESWAR DUTTA AND 30 ORS. GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE NAMTI BOYS H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAMTIDOU DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 2:MOBIDUR HUSSAIN GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE BANHGARH RUPJYOTI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SILASAKU DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 3:SRI DIPAK GOGOI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE TRISENI HIGH SCHOOL VILL- LIGIRIPUKHURI KHANIKUCHI GOAN P.O. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 4:SRI TULSI MARAK GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE SOLOGURI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL VILL- MADOORAI TEA ESTATE P.O. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 5:MD. SMAIL ALI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA BORTALA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAZIR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 6:SRI BIPUL BURAGOHAIN GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE MOTHIACHING RAJKHOWA HIGH SCHOOL VILLJATAKIA P.O. JATAKIA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 7:SRI SAJEN GORH GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE MEZENGA H.S. SCHOOL MADOORAI TEA ESTATE PO. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 8:SRI HEM CHANDRA SAHU GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE MADOORAI GOHAIN JOYMATI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL P.O. MADOORAI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 9:SRI BIREAVAR GOGOI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE KHONAMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. KHONAMUKH DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 10:SRI BISHNU MURAH GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE GODAPANI H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NA-PAM BAROTI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 11:SRI BIKRAM KURANI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE MEJENGA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MEKIPUR DIST. SIVASAGAR

¶27

Page No.# 8/23

¶28

ASSAM. 12:SRI BIREN KANDHA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE DHOLEGAGAN H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MOTHURAPUR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 13:SRI SUKESWAR NAYAK GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE MATHURAPUR H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MATHURAPUR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 14:SRI KUSUM BARUAH GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE TENGAPUKHURI HIGH SCHOOL P.O. TENGAPUKHURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 15:SRI RANJIT MAHANTA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE BANGHGARH HIGH SCHOOL P.O. CHAIANGALIBARI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 16:SMTI. KHUNJA GOGOI KHANIKAR GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE SIMALUGURI HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SIMALUGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 17:SMTI. LABANYA GOGOI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE CHAKIMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. CHAKIMUKH DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 18:SRI GUNI RAM TANTI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE GELEKY HIGH SCHOOL P.O. GELEKY DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 19:SRI PRANJAL MAHANTA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA BORTALA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 20:SRI MANU SAIKIA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE DIKHOWMUKH JANAJATI H.S. SCHOOL P.O. BHORALOWA TINIALI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 21:SRI BIKRAM KONA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE HATIPATI HIGH SCHOOL VILL- BORHUL P.O. BIHUBAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 22:SRI DIMBESWAR NEOG GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE BARPATRADOLA HIGH SCHOOL P.O. KALUGAON DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 23:SMTI. NIRODA GOGOI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE SANTAK HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SANTAK DIST. SIVASAGAR

¶29

Page No.# 9/23

¶30

ASSAM. 24:SRI SOMIR KUMAR SUR GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE GELEKY HIGH SCHOOL VILL and P.O. GELAKY DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 25:SRI KULADHAR GOGOI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE TRIBENI HIGH SCHOOL VILL and P.O. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 26:SRI DEBEN BORAGOHAIN GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE CHIKIMUKH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILLand P.O. NAZIRA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 27:SRI RANJAN KUMAR CHETIA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE JAHANJI HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL- JAHANJI MORAN GAON P.O. JAHANJI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 28:SRI INDRA PRAN TANTI GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE GODAPANI HIGH SCHOOL VILL and P.O. GADAPANI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 29:SRI SHABA KANN KONWAR GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE RAHDOI HIGH SCHOL VILL and P.O. DHUPBOR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 30:SRI DIMBESWAR DUTTA GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE CHARIALI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL VILL- DERAGHAR SARTRA P.O. MOZERA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. 31:PRITAM KARMAKAR GRADE -IV EMPLOYEE CHEKIMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. CHEKIMUKH DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR. D SAIKIA Advocate for : appearing for THANESWAR DUTTA AND 30 ORS.

¶31

Linked Case : Review.Pet./45/2022

¶32

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6

¶33

Page No.# 10/23

¶34

2: THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 VERSUS THANESWAR DUTTA AND 37 ORS. GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NAMTI BOYS H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAMTIDOLL DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 2:MOBIDUR HUSSAIN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE BANHGRAH RUPJYOTI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SILASAKU DIST- SIBASAGAR ASSAM 3:DIPAK GOGOI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE TRISENI HIGH SCHOOL VILL LIGIRIPUKHURI KHANIKUCHI GAON P.O. NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 4:TULSI MARAK GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SOLOGURI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL VILL. MADOORAI TEA ESTATE P.O. NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 5:MD. SMAIL ALI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA BERTALA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 6:BIPUL BURAGOHAIN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE MOTHIACHINGA RAJKHOWA HIGH SCHOOL VILL JATAKIA P.O. JATAKIA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 7:SAJEN GORH GRADE IV EMPLOYEE

¶35

Page No.# 11/23

¶36

NEZENGA H.S. SCHOOL MADOORI TEA EAST P.O. NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 8:HEM CHANDRA SAHU GRADE IV EMPLOYEE MADOORAL GOHAIN GAON JOYMATI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL P.O. MADOORI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 9:BIRESWAR GOGOI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE KHONAMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. KHONAMUKH DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 10:BISHNU MURAH GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GODAPANI H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NA-PAM BAROTI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 11:BIKRAM KURMI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE MAJENGA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MAKIPUR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 12:BIREN KANDHA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE DHOLEBAGAN H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MOTHURAPUR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 13:SUKESWAR NAYAK GRADE IV EMPLOYEE MATHURAPUR H.S. SCHOOL P.O. MATHURAPUR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 14:KUSUM BARUAH GRADE IV EMPLOYEE TENGAPUKHURI HIGH SCHOOL P.O. TENGAPUKHURI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 15:RANJIT MAHANTA

¶37

Page No.# 12/23

¶38

GRADE IV EMPLOYEE BANHGARH HIGH SCHOOL P.O. CHIANGALIBARI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 16:KHUNJA GOGOI KHANIKAR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SIMOLUGURI HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SIMOLUGURI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 17:LABANYA GOGOI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHAKIMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. CHAKIMUKH DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 18:PRANJAL MAHANTA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NAZIRA BORTALLA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. NAZIRA DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 19:MANU SAIKIA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE DIKHOWMUKH JANAJATI H.S. SCHOOL P.O. BHARALOWA TINIALI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 20:BIKRAM KANCHA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE HATIPATI HIGH SCHOOL VILL BORHULA BINUBAR P.O. BINUBAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 21:PRITAM KHAKLARI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHEKIMUKH H.S. SCHOOL P.O. CHEKIMUKH DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 22:ALAKESH PATHAK GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SUNDARIDIA HIGH SCHOOL VILL. SUNDARDIA P.O. SUNDARDIA DIST- BARPETA

¶39

Page No.# 13/23

¶40

ASSAM 23:AJIT DEKA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE SARTHEBARI GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL VILL. GUMUA P.O. SARTHEBARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 24:DIMBESWAR KALITA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE REHABARI HIGH SCHOOL VILL PUB REHABARI P.O. REHABARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 25:SADANANDA TALUKDAR GRADE IV EMPLOYEE JANATA HIGH SCHOOL VILL. BAMAKHATA P.O. BANAKHATA PATHSALA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 26:DHIRAJ MEDHI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE NABAJYOTI HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SARTHABARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 27:MD. HABIBUR RAHMAN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE BETABARI U.C. DEKA HIGH SCHOOL P.O. SONARIGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM 28:BHADRESWAR BAISHYA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE REHABARI HIGH SCHOOL VILL. PUB REHABARI P.O. REHABARI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 29:SANJIB KUMAR NATH GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHANSARI H.S. SCHOOL VILL PUB REHABARI P.O. CHANGSARI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶41

Page No.# 14/23

¶42

30:MANINDRA KALITA GRADE IV EMPLOYEE PUB GUWAHATI HIGH SCHOOL VILL. PATHARQUWARI P.O. NARENGI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 31:DHANJIT DAS GRADE IV EMPLOYEE HATIGAON HIGH SCHOOL P.O. NARENGI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 32:HAREN CHARAN BARMAN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE CHANDRAPUR HIGH SCHOOL P.O. CHANDRAPUR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 33:ANIL CH. GAYAN GRADE IV EMPLOYEE BHATGHARIA H.S. SCHOOL VILL HILLOIPARA P.O. KACHARIPATHAR DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM 34:GUNI RAM TANTI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GELAKY HIGH SCHOOL P.O. GELEKY DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 35:MD. CHAUKAT ALI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GANDHIYA HIGH SCHOOL VILL and P.O. GANDHIYA DIST- NALBARI ASSAM 36:MAINUDDIN AHMED GRADE IV EMPLOYEE JANATA H.S. HIGH SCHOOL VILL. BIHAMPUR P.O. MULARKUCHI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM 37:OMAR GAJI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE GANDHARIPARA HIGH MADRASSA

¶43

Page No.# 15/23

¶44

P.S. MAIRAJHAAR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 38:RINA DEVI GRADE IV EMPLOYEE PUB BAHJANI GOPAL THAN BALMIKI BIDYAMANDIR SCHOOL P.O. BHAJANI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM -----------Advocate for : SR GA ASSAM Advocate for : appearing for THANESWAR DUTTA AND 37 ORS.

¶45

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶46

Date : 09-08-2022

¶47

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶48

Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for the respondents in the review petitions, meaning thereby the writ petitioners of the respective writ petitions, against the judgments of which, the review petitions have been filed.

¶49

We are taking up all the review petitions in a common hearing and to be given its consideration by a common judgment and order from the point of view that the legal issue involved and urged upon in the review petitions are same.

¶50

All the writ petitions were filed raising a common grievance, amongst others, that the respective writ petitioners were appointed during the period 1993 to 1995 or in certain cases may be a little earlier or a little later against various posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV in the provincialised schools in the State

¶51

Page No.# 16/23

¶52

of Assam. The petitioners claimed that the procedure adopted in making their appointments were in conformity to the due procedure of selection under the Rules whereas the review petitioners in the Education Department disputes to the extent that all such appointments may not have been by following the due procedure of selection. But, considering the nature of the issue involved in this batch of review petitions, we are not required to go into the issue as to whether the writ petitioners were appointed by following the due procedure of law or as contended by the review petitioners Education department that they were not.

¶53

In the writ petitions, a common stand had been taken that all the writ petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts at the relevant point when they were appointed. We have perused one such writ petition being WP(C) No. 7485/2015, wherein in paragraph 5, a specific stand had been taken that the appointments were made against sanctioned vacant posts and they are continuing in service.

¶54

Paragraph 5 of the writ petition WP(C) No. 7485/2015 had been countered by the review petitioners in the Education department in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition of the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Assam, wherein a stand had been taken that the writ petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis without following the due procedure of law and therefore, their salaries were stopped by the Government. It was also stated that the appointments of the writ petitioners were in excess and hence the retention of their posts were also stopped by the Government.

¶55

The very stand that the appointments of the writ petitioners were in excess of the available posts has to be understood to be a stand of the review petitioners in the Education Department that the writ petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. Be that as it may, writ petitions

¶56

Page No.# 17/23

¶57

similar to that of WP(C) No. 7485/2015 were instituted by others raising the same contention that the writ petitioners therein were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and being appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, they are entitled to the benefits provided in paragraph 53 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others –vsUma Devi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

¶58

The other writ petitions being WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and others were given a final consideration by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015. In WP(C) No. 7485/2015, the final consideration was given by the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017, which in fact was delivered following the earlier judgment dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions. This batch of review petitions are against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 in WP(C) No. 7485/2015 as well as the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions.

¶59

In the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions, in paragraph 7 thereof, a conclusion was arrived at that on a comparative reading of the pleadings of the parties, it would be revealed that there was no dispute about rendering of service by the writ petitioners therein in the various posts by way of ad-hoc appointments for more than 15 years. There was a further conclusion arrived that there was also no dispute between the parties that the writ petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis against sanctioned vacant posts as on those days the system of ad-hoc appointment was prevalent. A third conclusion was also arrived at that there was no dispute that the writ petitioners were qualified for the posts against which they were appointed.

¶60

The aforesaid three circumstances were carved out by the Court in its

¶61

Page No.# 18/23

¶62

judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 on the premises that the aforesaid three conditions are the conditions precedent as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra) in paragraph 53 thereof. In the judgment in Uma Devi (3) (supra), a proposition of law had also been laid down that if the aforesaid three conditions are satisfied and the incumbents therein had continued in service without the aid of any interim order of the Court, they would be entitled to a process of regularization of their service as a onetime measure. In the judgment dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 a reference also was made to an Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2013 of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, wherein a decision was conveyed for regularization of the services of those employees as a onetime measure who satisfies the aforesaid three conditions as well as remained in service without the aid of any interim order of any Court.

¶63

Having arrived at such conclusion in paragraph 7 of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015, reference was made to the proposition laid down in Uma Devi (3) (supra) and accordingly, in paragraph 8 of the said judgment, it was concluded as extracted:-

¶64

“8. In the case at hand also, the petitioners were initially appointed against vacant posts of Grade – IV on ad hoc basis in various High and Higher Secondary Schools of Sivasagar district. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that they are not qualified for the posts. The petitioners have also rendered more than ten years of continuous service in their respective posts without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal except after 04-10-2012 (by which time they had already completed more than ten years of continuous service). Under the circumstances, in my judgment, the time has now come for the State respondents to take a one time measure to regularize the services of the petitioners against the posts in they are hitherto working. In the view that I have taken, the impugned decision contained in the circular dated 5-5-2015 cannot be sustained in law. In fact, the Government of Assam in the Finance Department has issued the Office memorandum dated 27-

¶65

Page No.# 19/23

¶66

6-2013 with the following instructions consistent with the decisions of the Apex Court:

¶67

“2. The State Government will now like to take the “One time measure” the regularization of those workers as referred to in paragraph 53 of the orders in Uma Devi’s case read with Kesari’s case, whereby exception was craved out to regularize all employees who fulfill the following three conditions:-

¶68

(i) Who have been working continuously for 10 years or more as on 10.04.06 i.e. the date of passing of the judgment in Uma Devi’s case without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or Tribunal.

¶69

(ii) Who have been engaged against sanctioned vacant posts.

¶70

(iii) Who have requisite qualification to hold the post.

¶71

It is therefore necessary to undertake One time exercise to regularize

¶72

those W.C..M.R. and similarly placed workers who have fulfilled all the above three conditions for due compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned cases.

¶73

In view of above, all the Departments shall undertake One time exercise for regularization of services of those employees who fulfill all the three conditions as mentioned in para 2 strictly in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and then place the proposal before the Cabinet towards regularization of services of those employees who were engaged against vacant sanctioned posts in which they are continuing since their appointment”.

¶74

A reading of the proposition laid down in paragraph 8 of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 would makes it discernible that by following the proposition of the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2013 of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam as regards regularizing such employees who fulfil the aforementioned three conditions and remained in service without the aid of any interim order of the Court, there was a decision and direction that in respect of the petitioners who fulfil the required qualification, a onetime measure to regularize their service be taken.

¶75

This batch of review petitions are instituted on the ground that the

¶76

Page No.# 20/23

¶77

presumption arrived at by the Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions in paragraph 7 that there is no dispute between the parties that the writ petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis against sanctioned vacant posts, is an incorrect acceptance of a fact by the Court. Reference is made that although there may have been an assertion by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions that they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, but there is also a counter contention by the authorities in the Education department that the writ petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts.

¶78

In view of the assertions and counter assertions, there was a requirement of a factual determination as to whether the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. But in the judgment under review dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions which was also followed in the judgment dated 22.02.2017 in WP(C) No. 7485/2015, no such factual conclusion had been arrived that the writ petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and there is merely an assumption that there is no dispute that they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts.

¶79

This batch of review petitions are instituted on the aforesaid ground that for an appropriate adjudication of the writ petitions, there was also a necessity to arrive at a factual conclusion as to whether the writ petitioners were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts.

¶80

The question as to whether an employee is appointed against a sanctioned vacant post is always a question of fact. An employee can be said to have been appointed against a sanctioned vacant post, if at the time of the appointment vacant sanctioned posts were available in that particular organization where the concerned employees were appointed. A conclusion as

¶81

Page No.# 21/23

¶82

to whether an employee was appointed against sanctioned vacant post would be a person specific conclusion as to whether the particular employee was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post and it cannot be a question of a general proposition in a joint writ petition filed by several persons that they were in fact appointed against sanctioned vacant posts.

¶83

Considering the limited grievance raised in this batch of review petitions, we are inclined to allow the review petitions to the limited extent that there is a requirement under the law to arrive at an individual factual satisfaction as to whether a given writ petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacant post, which again would depend solely on the facts and circumstances of each individual appointment. Otherwise, as regards the general proposition accepted in the judgments under review dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2021 and other writ petitions and 22.02.201 in WP(C) No. 7485/2015, we are agreeing with such proposition that if the three aforementioned conditions are satisfied and the petitioners concerned continued in service beyond the period of ten year as on 21.04.2016 without the aid of an interim order of any Court, such petitioners would be entitled to a consideration for regularization as a onetime measure as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (3)(supra).

¶84

But to have the benefit of the aforesaid proposition, there also have to be an individual factual conclusion to be arrived that the person concerned amongst others, was appointed against a sanctioned vacant post.

¶85

In the circumstance, we require the individual writ petitioners to make an application before the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department stating in detail the dates of appointment, the names of the institutions where they were appointed, the procedure adopted for such

¶86

Page No.# 22/23

¶87

appointments, the posts to which the appointments were made as well as the post creation number, if available. Upon the individual applications being submitted, the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department shall call for the individual records from the respective schools where the writ petitioners were appointed. From the records, the Secretary shall verify as to what was the number of sanctioned posts in respect of the posts where the individual petitioners were appointed and also to find out as to whether on the day when the appointments were made, any of the sanctioned posts, if available, were vacant.

¶88

If the answer is in the affirmative, it has to be understood that irrespective of the manner of appointment of the writ petitioners, they were appointed against sanctioned vacant posts. If the conclusion arrived at would be contrary that no sanctioned vacant posts were available on the day the appointments were made, the conclusion may be arrived at that the persons concerned were not appointed against any sanctioned vacant post. If the conclusion arrived at is that the persons concerned were appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts, the provisions of the two judgments dated 30.09.2015 in WP(C) No. 2921/2015 and other writ petitions and 22.02.2017 in WP(C) No.7485/2015 requiring their regularization as a onetime measure would be applicable and also be complied with.

¶89

In respect of those writ petitioners where the conclusion arrived is that they were not appointed against the sanctioned vacant posts, it would be for the authorities in the Secondary Education Department to take any appropriate decision against them as may be available under the law.

¶90

The review petitions are partly allowed only to the extent indicated above and the conclusion that there was no dispute that the writ petitioners were

¶91

Page No.# 23/23

¶92

appointed against sanctioned vacant posts is recalled and substituted by the requirement of this order to make a factual verification in respect of the individual writ petitioners.

¶93

Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioners states that the aforesaid exercise can be initiated and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶94

Let it be so.

¶95

The review petitions are partly allowed as indicated above.

¶96

Comparing Assistant

The State of Assam and Anr. v. Thaneswar Dutta and 37 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Assam and Anr. v. Thaneswar Dutta and 37 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moni Kanta Sinha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smt. Goma Devi Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Ratneswar Bania Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Union of India Vs on the Death of Deepak Sarma His Legal Heirs

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Thaneswar Dutta and 30 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Ajit Gogoi and 13 Ors.