JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. AC Borbora and Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M Smith and Mr. MP Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for Guwahati Development Department, Government of Assam and Guwahati Municipal Corporation. Mr. P. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. DP Borah, learned counsel has argued on behalf of respondent No. 9.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of quo warranto for declaring appointment of respondent No. 9 to the post of Chief Engineer, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) as illegal and null and void.

3. Petitioner is a journalist and finding the impugned order to be unconscionable, he has filed the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, he had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(C) No. 5479/2018 challenging appointment of respondent No. 9 as Chief Engineer (In-charge) of Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA).

4. It is stated that respondent No. 9 is holding the post of Executive Engineer in ex-cadre in the Public Works Department (PWD), State of Assam. He was the beneficiary of several promotion orders from the stage of Assistant Executive Engineer and ultimately, he was given promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), PWD.

5. At the direction of the Chief Minister, an inquiry was conducted by Addl. Chief Engineer (In-charge of Personnel Department). The inquiry was concluded on 16.12.2014 recommending reversion of respondent No. 9 from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer (ex-cadre). Thereafter consequential notification was issued on 05.01.2015. This was challenged by respondent No. 9 before this Court in WP(C) No. 5/2015 which was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court on 30.04.2015. On writ appeal being filed by respondent No. 9, being WA No. 138/2015, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal by interfering with the order of the Single Bench as well as notification dated 05.01.2015 vide order dated 07.08.2015.

6. This decision of the Division Bench was assailed before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10662, 10663 and 10664/2018. Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2018 set aside the decision of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the Single Bench.

7. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 9 was appointed as Chief Engineer (In-charge) of GMDA vide order dated 27.07.2016.

8. Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, being WP(C) No. 5479/2018 seeking a writ of quo warranto by declaring appointment of respondent No. 9 as Chief Engineer (Incharge), GMDA as illegal and null and void. By order dated 07.03.2019, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.07.2016.

9. Immediately, on that day i.e., on 7.3.2019 itself, a notification was issued by the PWD withdrawing the service of respondent No. 9 from the post of Chief Engineer (In-charge), GMDA under Guwahati Development Department and placing his service at the disposal of the Guwahati Development Department for posting as Chief Engineer, GMC on deputation pending finalization of the terms and conditions.

10. This was again put to challenge by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1692/2019. While hearing the said writ petition, Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the official respondents made a submission before the Court that the notification dated 7.3.2019 was not an appointment order of respondent No. 9 with the further submission that since it was not an appointment order, Court should not entertain the writ petition at that stage but could examine validity of any order of appointment to the post of Chief Engineer, GMC as and when issued. In the light of such submission made, the said writ petition was disposed of on 13.03.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again, if any ineligible person was appointed to