Appointments made under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951 do not authorize the incumbent to claim regularisation based on such appointments, and the service rendered under such appointments cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority.

As common question arises out of similar facts, these appeals are heard together and decided by a common.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellants, viz. Nabin Chandra Borodoloi and Suraj Ali Laskar (whose heirs are brought on record since he expired during the pendency of the proceeding) were appointed on 5.5.1984 under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service (Limitation of Function ) Regulation, 1951 (for short “the Regulation, 1951) to the post of District Elementary Education Officers (DEEO) and they joined duties on 22nd May, 1984. Later on the Government issued an order dated 20.12.89 regularing their services with retrospective effect from 16.1.1987.

3. On 13.7.1988 the Assam Public Service Commission has conducted a selection process for appointment on the post of DEEO respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were selected and were appointed in the post by order dated 13.7.1988, whereas the appellants also participated in the same selection process but could not clear it. On 20.4.1992 the State Government has published a provisional gradation list of District Elementary Education Officers, wherein the appellants were shown juniors to respondent Nos. 3 to 10 taking their dates of appointment and the period of service from the date of the period of service from the date of the order of regularisation i.e. 20th December, 1989 and not from the date the appointment order was given effect to i.e. 16.1.87. The appellants submitted representations unsuccessfully. Ultimately the Government has issued a final seniority list of DEEO on 22.7.97, where the appellants were shown as juniors to respondent Nos. 3 to 10. Aggrieved by the position assigned to them the appellants have failed two writ petitions (viz. Civil Rule No. 336./98 by Nabin Ch. Bordoloi and Civil Rule No. 337/98 by Suraj Ali Laskar). Respondent No. 3 and 5 also filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the retrospective regularisation of the appellants, which was registered as WP (c) No. 5342/99 (HK Sarma & Anr. -Vs-State of Assam & Ors.).

4. All these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment and order dated 4.10.2001. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioners' service from 16.1.87 till they have been regularized cannot be counted for the purpose of ascertaining their seniority as they were appointed on ad-hoc basic. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Hemanta Kumar Bench of this Court in Hemanta Kumar Pegu & Ors. -V- State of Assam and Others, 1988 (1) GLJ, 383 and Pranjit Kumar Das-V-State of Assam & Ors., (1995)1 GLR 229: 1995 (II) GLT 28. The learned Single Judge by its order dated 4.10.2001 dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants herein and allowed the writ petition field by the respondent No. 3 and 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment the three appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

5. It is contended by Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants that since the appellants have been appointed on the post of DEEO under Regulation 3(f) of Regulation 1951, the service rendered by them has to be counted for the purpose of counting their seniority from the date of their initial appointment, in any case, from the date they have been regularised i.e. 16.1.87. The appellants having been appointed under Regulation 3(f) of Regulation 1951, the State Government was justified in giving regularisation to the appellants with retrospective effect and the policy decision taken by the Government does not fall within the ambit of the arbitrariness. On the other hand, the submission of Mr K.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the private respondents is that the appellants were never appointed on regular basis to the cadre post, the appointment of the appellants at best could be treated as temporary or ad-hoc, therefore, the Government has committed an error in granting retrospective regularisation to th