The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made under the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999, for the next of kin of individuals involved in the Assam Movement, cannot be kept in abeyance based on mere oral complaints and that due process must be followed in case of any eligibility concerns.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, who described themselves as next of kin of persons, who had sacrificed their lives or who had been rendered physically disabled permanently, while participating in the Assam movement on the problem of foreigners, have approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate Writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated 1.10.02 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and order, dated 4.10.02 (Annexure-8 of the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4, namely, Director of Higher Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the appointments of the Petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff of schools have been kept in abeyance.

2. In a narrow campus, the case of the Petitioners may be put as follows: The Government of Assam decided to make appointment, in public service under the Government of Assam, of the next of kins of those who had scarified their lives as well of those, who had been victims of the Assam Movement, on the problem of foreigners, by relaxing the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules of the services concerned in terms of the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 1999). In accordance with the decision taken by the Government on 6.7.2002, appointments were to be made in the departments of Flood Control, Public Works, Irrigation, Public Health Engineering, Social Welfare, Panchayat and Rural Development, Health and Family Welfare, Home Education and Excise. As per this decision, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (B) Department, vide his letter, dated 11.7.2000, informed the departments concerned about the said decision of the Government with a request to make appointments in terms of the said decision within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the list of candidates to be furnished by the implementation of the Assam Accord Department (popularly known as "I.A.A, Department") and clarified to the departments concerned that the clearance of the State Level Empowered Committee for recruitment against the posts aforementioned had also been accorded. It was further conveyed vide the letter, dated 11.7.2000, aforementioned that the "affected candidates" shall be appointed against the vacancies shown by the concerned administrative department in the letter under reference. The Petitioners fall within the ambit of the definition of the "affected candidates" and they were duly issued certificates by the Deputy Commissioners concerned certifying the same. All the Petitioners, except Petitioner No. 4, are graduates and, therefore, entitled to be appointed as Assistant Teachers of Secondary Schools. The Petitioner No. 4 has passed H.S.S.L.C. examination and he is entitled to be appointed as LDA-cum-typist/Section Assistant inasmuch as he has passed proficiency test in typing. After necessary verification, the I.A.A. Department prepared a list of 29 candidates including the Petitioners for appointment. After necessary verification, 18 candidates including the Petitioners, except Petitioner No. 4, were appointed as school teachers and the Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as L.D.A-cum-typist by Respondent No. 4 aforementioned vide order, dated 24.2.2002. By their orders of appointment, the Petitioners were directed to join the, respective posts within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Petitioner Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have already joined their respective posts, but the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have not been allowed to join their respective posts by the concerned Headmasters on the ground that by the impugned order, dated 1.10.2002 and 4.10.2002 aforementioned, the appointments were asked to be kept in abeyance. For the direction so given, no reason has been assigned by the Respondent concerned. While persons, similarly appointed, have already been receiving salaries and allowances regu