Mrinal Kalita and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

3: HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O SAYED ALI R/O VILL- SIMLABARI P.O.- SIMLABARI P.S.- BUGUAN DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM- 783101 4: ANIL CH. RAY S/O KSHIROD MOHAN RAY R/O VILL- DALOK P.O. AND P.S.- AGIA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM-783120

¶10

5: MEHER JABIN D/O LATE ABDUL MOTIN R/O VILL- BIDDYAPARA BYE LANE WARD NO. 9 P.S.- DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM-78332

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶14

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THEE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781036 4:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES) HENGRABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781036

¶15

5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES GOALPARA ASSAM-78310

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TAHBILDAR, MS N N SHARMA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH,

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

11.03.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. A.R Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health.

¶23

2. The petitioners were engaged as Grade-IV employees on a contractual basis in the years 2005 and 2008 respectively under the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara. Subsequently, their services were regularized against the vacant sanctioned

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

posts of Grade-IV in the Civil Hospital by the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara, vide orders dated 18.05.2010, 22.09.2010, and 17.10.2011 respectively.

¶26

3. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department vide letter dated 27.03.2017 directed the Director of Health Services, Assam directed to start process for scrutiny of Grade-IV employees including Surveillance Workers under the establishment of Health Department so as to verify the genuineness of the employees. Accordingly, the Director of Health Services, Assam constituted a Screening committee directed all Joint Directors to appear before the Screening committee with all relevant documents. Thereafter, the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara had directed the Grade-IV staff to appear before the Screening Committee at the office of Director of Health Services, Assam, Hengrabari along with their appointment letters, transfer order etc wherein the petitioners had appeared in the Screening Committee as directed.

¶27

4. Thereafter, upon completion of the verification of their documents, without furnishing any report of the Screening Committee, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the Jt. Director of Health Services vide order dated 28.02.2018 wherein it is stated that the Screening committee has found their appointment doubtful and accordingly directed to petitioners to once again appear before Screening Committee for further verification and also to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated as their appointments have been found doubtful by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Director of Health Services, Assam. Against these show cause notice, some of the employees approached this Court by filing writ petitions being W.P(C) No. 3051/2018 and others. The petitions were disposed of directing the respondents to extend the screening exercise to enable everyone to participate.

¶28

5. The Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara had issued the Show cause notices dated 13.06.2019 to the petitioners which was challenged before this Court by way of a Writ Petition bearing W.P(C) No W.P(C) No. 4133/2019 and the writ petition

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

was disposed vide order dated 31.07.2019. Thereafter the Director of Health Services, Assam issued the impugned letter dated 01.8.2019 directed the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara to issue fresh show cause notices indicating the specific deficiencies i.e that the persons who were appointed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara without DHS, Assam approval and SIU approval from Government. Accordingly the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara had issued the impugned show cause notice dated 31.08.2019 to the petitioners for which the petitioners did not reply to the show cause notices issued. The Director of Health Services, Assam issued the impugned letter dated 22.10.2019 to remove the petitioners from their services immediately. On the basis of said letter, the Joint Director of Health Services, Goalpara had issued the impugned order dated 28.10.2019 removing the Petitioners from their services. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

6. The learned counsel for the parties submits that this writ petition stands covered by the Judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed in W.A No. 428/2023 and others. In the said Writ Appeal, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and the W.P(C) No. 1931/2020 and other connected writ petitions vide Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 stood interfered with and the terminations orders issued against the appellants are quashed. The relevant portion of the Judgments are extracted below:

¶32

The appellants in WA No. 144/2024 were initially engaged during the periods of 1999-2005 on an ad-hoc or casual basis against the vacant posts and, upon completion of continuous service and availability of permanent vacancies, their services were regularised during the periods of 2009-2011 with effect from their initial dates of engagement

¶33

“91. To summarise, the constitutional position that thus emerges is clear and admits of little ambiguity. Where appointments to public posts are made pursuant to public advertisements and the recruitment process initiated by the State against existing vacancies, and the appointees have served for long and uninterrupted periods without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, such appointments cannot be treated as nullities merely on account of administrative or procedural lapses attributable to the employer. After the extraction of a prolonged service, the State is constitutionally restrained from undoing its own acts to the grave detriment of the employees situated

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

at the lowest ranks of service, more particularly, when there is no allegation of fraud or manipulation and admittedly, appointments were made after a selection process.

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the action of the State Government and the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶37

The appeals are accordingly allowed. The common judgment and order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned single judge is interfered with. The termination orders issued against the appellants are quashed.

¶38

The appellants shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service for all notional purposes, including seniority and pensionery benefits as per Rules. However, balancing the equities and bearing in mind the public exchequer, the appellants shall not be entitled to back wages for the interregnum period.

¶39

The respondent shall give effect to this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to cost.”

¶40

7. Since the parties are agreed that this issue raised in the present writ petition stand covered by the Division Bench Judgment passed in W.A No.428/2023 vide Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2026 accordingly, the writ petition is also stands allowed in term of the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶41

8. The impugned orders of terminations dated 28.10.2019 stands interfered with. The writ petitioners will be forthwith reinstated in service with continuity of service for all notional purposes including seniority and pensionery benefits as per Rules. However, they shall not be entitled to back wages for the interregnum period.

¶42

9. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of in terms of the above.

¶43

10. This order passed today shall be given effect from the same date on which the order in W.A. No. 428/2023 is directed to be given effect.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Mrinal Kalita and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrinal Kalita and 4 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Rai @ Rajnarayan Rai Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abdul Wahab Vs J. B. Ekka and 5 Ors.

Paresh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Aparajita Changkakati Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gazi Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bijoy Rabha Vs Bharat Kumar Vaishnav and Ors.