Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less identical facts were heard together and are being answered by this common judgment and order.

2. The facts are somewhat long and a detail narration thereof will be necessary to understand the issues arising in the two cases under consideration. The facts being largely similar the court finds it convenient to recite the facts of W.P.(C) No. 2594/2005 and thereafter answer the issues arising in the said writ petition. The decision of the court in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 2594/2005 will provide an effective answer to the issues arising in the connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 5033/2004.

W.P(C)No. 2594/2005

3. The writ petitioners, who are 17 in number, are presently working on ad hoc basis either as Assistant Enforcement Inspectors or as Enforcement Checkers. Their present tenure of service is upto such time that regular appointments in the said posts are made and it is the process initiated by the State for making such regular appointments which have been called into question in the present writ petition.

An earlier selection process was initiated by the State Government for filling up the posts in question in the year 2002. The same, would not be relevant, save and except for the fact that the said process was challenged before this Court and the matter eventually reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court by order dated 4.8.2003 set aside the selection held in the year 2002 and directed for fresh examination/selection to be held to fill up the posts in question. The Apex Court further, directed that the ad hoc appointees would continue to hold the posts in question till regular appointment is made without, however, creating any equitable rights in such ad hoc appointees on account of the service rendered by them.

After the aforesaid order of the Apex Court dated 4.8.2003 was passed, a set of Rules, i.e., the Assam Transport Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2003), was framed in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, regulating the recruitment and conditions of services of persons appointed to the Assam Transport Service. The relevant features of the aforesaid Rules may be taken note of at this stage.

Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 2003 defines the appointing authority to be the Commissioner of Transport in respect of Class-Ill non-gazetted cadres of the service with which posts the present writ petition is concerned.

Rule 2(b) of the Rules defines Selection Board to mean the Board constituted under Rule 13.

Rule 3(d) of the Rules defines Class-Ill service to include the cadre of Assistant Enforcement Inspector and Enforcement Checker.

Under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 75% of the posts in the cadre of Assistant Enforcement Inspector are to be filled up by direct recruitment in accordance with the Rules 7, 8, 9 and 10 whereas under Rule 5(vi), all posts in the cadre of Enforcement Checker is to be filled up by direct recruitment., Rule 6 would be of particular significance. Under Rule 6(1) direct recruitment is to be made on the basis of recommendations made by the Commission (State Public Service Commission) or the Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Under Rule 6(1)(a), before the end of each year the appointing authority is required to make an assessment with regard to the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment during the next year and intimate the same to the Commission/Board together with the details regarding reservation. Under Rule 6(1)(b), the appointing authority is to request the Commission/Board to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment in order of preference, whereas, under Rule 6(1)(c) the Commission/Board is required to make a selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribed by the Government. Rule 6(1)(c) empowers the Commission/Boa