The central legal point established in the judgment is that the engagement and regularisation of employees by the Market Committees under the Assam Agricultural Products Market Act, 1972, require approval from the ASAMB and the State Government, and no permanent appointment can be made without such approval.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ application is directed against the release of the petitioners from their Muster Roll employment under the respondents. They have also prayed for a declaration that they are regularised permanent employees of the respondents.

2. The seven writ petitioners were engaged as Muster Roll workers (Grade-IV) under the respondent No. 3 i.e. Dhekiajuli Regulated Market Committee. The first three petitioners were so engaged with effect from 1st December, 1998. While the 5th petitioner was so engaged with effect from 31st July, 2000. The remaining three petitioners were engaged with effect from 21st June, 2000. Although the petitioners have not annexed any copy of orders of engagement but have placed on records the letter dated 24.7.2001 by which the authorities of the Dhekiajuli Regulated Market Committee (DRMC) intimated the Chief Executive Officer, Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board (ASAMB) about their such engagement and the resolution adopted by the Market Committee to regularise their such engagement as Grade-IV.

3. By letter dated 20.2.2001, the DRMC requested the ASAMB to accord approval for regularisation of the services of the petitioners. This was followed by the impugned letter dated 19.2.2002 from the Chief Executive Officer, ASAMB to the Secretary, DRMC to release the Muster Roll Employees immediately. Thereafter the Secretary, DRMC intimated the Chief Executive Officer, that the Muster Roll employees i.e. the petitioners had been released with effect from 5.3.2002. In the letter, it was emphasised that there was immediate need of engagement of Muster Roll workers for working in the check gates and at the headquarters.

4. It is the legality and validity of the aforesaid action of the respondents which is under challenge in this writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the ASAMB have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. However, the DRMC i.e. the respondent No. 3 and 4 who in fact had requested for continuation o the services of the petitioners have not filed any return.

5. I have heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, ASAMB. Referring to the provisions of the Assam Agricultural Products Market Act, 1972, Mr. M. Nath strenuously argued that the services of the petitioners could not have been dispensed with at the behest of the Chief Executive Officer of ASAMB, more particularly when there was requirement for continuation of their services. He submitted that the DRMC having emphasised the need for regularisation of the services of the petitioners, the said Chief Executive Officer could not have insisted for their disengagement. Mr. S. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, ASAMB on the other hand submitted that the petitioners having been appointed without the appeal of the ASAMB, their very induction to the service was illegal. He also placed reliance of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1972 in support of his submission that the DRMC exceeded in its jurisdiction to engage the petitioners as Muster Roll workers and even urging for regularisation of their services without the approval of the ASAMB and the State Government.

6. It was admitted at the bar that the petitioners were appointed by the DRMC without any advertisement and selection. It is also an admitted position that there was no approval for their such engagement from the ASAMB. As per the amendments brought in the year 2000 to the aforesaid Act of 1972, no new posts of any category shall be created by the Market Committee without obtaining prior approval of the State Government through the Board and no new appointment shall be made in any capacity in the Market Committee whether on fixed pay or on ad hoc basis or otherwise, unless the post is approved by the State Government. Such a provision has been made by bringing amendment to Section 19 of the aforesaid Act of 1972. The Market Committee is also required to submit the respective lists of posts categorywise since