JUDGMENT :

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned standing counsel, Agriculture Department, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Ms. D. Yoka, learned counsel for private respondent No. 3.

2. The appellants herein 11 in numbers were appointed as Agriculture Field Assistant (Junior) on officiating basis for 1 year, under the Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide Orders, dated 25.7.2017, by the Director of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the petitioners joined on 26.7.2017 in their place of posting. In the meantime, the Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide order dated 4.9.2017 cancelled the entire appointment orders of the appellants on the ground that the appointments so made were without maintaining any transparency and observing the official formalities as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules with immediate effect until further order. Challenging the aforesaid order of termination the appellants filed WP(C) No. 671(AP)/2017 on ground that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard thereby denying natural justice. Further contention raised was that no any notice was served upon them nor any departmental proceeding was drawn prior to such termination of service and they are entitled to the protection under article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

3. The State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition denied such issuance of appointment letter by any official process. Rather, the same was stated to be fake appointment orders. Although the Director who issued such appointment letter admitted to have issued such appointment letters but the other State respondents contended that Director of the Agriculture is not the competent authority to issue such appointment letters in view of the Standing Order dated 31.10.2016, issued by the Secretary (Agriculture), Government of Arunachal Pradesh and there is no official record of issuing such appointment letter.

4. Learned Single Judge, on an appreciation of the materials on record and on the basis of documents produced, answered the writ petition by holding that there is no illegality in the cancellation of such fake appointment letters by the State respondents and that the petitioners are not entitled to take shelter under the provision of article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

5. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellants were appointed in the said post in the exigency of service and the Director of Agriculture has the power to appoint them. The officiating appointment is also stated to be covered under article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and well protected under the said provision of law.

6. We have heard the submission of learned counsels for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

7. According to Mr. Hussain, Director of Agriculture is a competent authority to issue such appointment letter, who has in fact admitted about such issuance of appointment letter to the appellants, and the Secretary of the Agriculture Department cannot delegate such power of the Director to another person. Highlighting the provisions under article 311 of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged before this court that the appellants should be extended the protection given under article 311(2) of the Constitution, at least to continue in the post till expiry of the 1 year period in terms of the appointment order.

8. Mr. Perme, learned standing counsel has opposed such contention of the appellants and submits that the appellants cannot be permitted to avail benefit in any score. Firstly, because there being no any Office file as regards the issuance of such appointment letters, the said appointment letters were found to be fake, which was i