Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 382
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Nani Tagia, J.
Tagam Dong - Appellant
Versus
Government Of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 of 2016
Decided On : 07-01-2020
D. Panging, Advocate, S. Tapin, Advocate, N. Ratan, Advocate, H. Lampu, Advocate
Violation of Recruitment Rule and Constitutional norms of public employment in regularising services and making appointments
Headnote:
Regularisation - Violation of Recruitment Rule - Article 14, 16 - [Technical Assistant] - [Recruitment Rule of 2013, Article 14, Article 16] - The court discussed the violation of the Recruitment Rule of 2013 and the Constitutional norms of public employment in regularizing the services of the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as Technical Assistants without issuing a public advertisement. The appointments of respondent Nos. 13 & 14 were also found to be made without following the Constitutional norms and were set aside and quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners challenged the regularisation of the services of respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as Technical Assistants without issuing a public advertisement. They also contested the appointment of respondent Nos. 13 & 14, stating that the appointments were made without following the Constitutional norms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regularisation of the services of respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as Technical Assistants and the appointments of respondent Nos. 13 & 14 were in violation of the Recruitment Rule of 2013 and the Constitutional norms of public employment.
Issues: Violation of Recruitment Rule, Constitutional norms of public employment
Ratio Decidendi: The regularisation of services and appointments made without following the Recruitment Rule and Constitutional norms of public employment are unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The impugned regularisation order dated 21.01.2015 regularising the services of respondent Nos. 6 to 12 in the posts of Technical Assistant and the appointments of respondent Nos. 13 & 14 as Technical Assistant were set aside and quashed. The court also directed to dispense with the services of respondent Nos. 13 & 14 forthwith.
JUDGMENT
Nani Tagia, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the writ petitioners for setting aside of the order of regularisation of services of the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as Technical Assistant in the State Council for Information Technology and eGovernance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by order dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Chairman, State Council for Information Technology and e-Governance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide memo No. DIT/SCITeG/141/2014-15/348-65. Although, no any specific prayer has been made by the writ petitioners for setting aside of the appointment of the respondent Nos. 13 & 14 as Technical Assistant in the prayer column of the writ petition, yet, the petitioners in paragraph-13 of the writ petition has pointed out that the respondent Nos. 13 to 14 were appointed as Technical Assistant on contractual basis by an order dated 09.01.2015, for a period of 6 (six) months in violation of the Recruitment Rule and also in violation of the Constitutional norms of appointment. The respondent Nos. 13 & 14, are stated to be still working as a Technical Assistant despite their initial appointment being only for 6 (six) months vide appointment order dated 09.01.2015.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition by the petitioners may, briefly be stated as follows:
wxyz
(i). The writ petitioners, 25 in number, who are Technical Degree holders from a recognised institute of India, states that the petitioner No.1 is a Master Degree holder in Information Technology, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 11 are Bachelors Degree holder of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering, the petitioner Nos. 12 to 18 are Master Degree holder in Technology Degree in Computer Science & Engineering, the petitioners Nos. 19 to 20 are Bachelor Degree holder in Information Technology, the petitioner No. 21 is a Bachelor Degree holder in Electronic & Communication and petitioner Nos. 22 to 25 are Bachelor Degree holder in Computer Application.
zyxw
wxyz
(ii). According to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 6 to 12 were initially appointed as Technical Assistant for a period of 6 (six) months on contract basis by the respondent No.5 /the Director, State Council for Information and eGovernance by an order dated 17.11.2011 and 18.11.2011 ( annexed as Annexure 6-Series to the writ petition). Although, the respondent Nos. 6 to 12, were appointed only for a period of 6 (six) months on contract basis as indicated above, their appointment came to be extended by the respondent authorities from time to time and they continued to serve as Technical Assistant in the respondent Department on contract basis.
zyxw
wxyz
(iii). While the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 continued to work as a Technical Assistant on contract basis, it is the case of the writ petitioners that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh framed a Recruitment Rule for the post of Technical Assistant which was notified in the State Gazette on 15.02.2013. In the Recruitment Rule as published in the Gazette with regard to the post of Technical Assistant, it is provided that the post shall be filled up 100% by direct recruitment and the educational and other qualification required for direct recruitment are prescribed to be (i). Diploma in IT and (ii). Class- XII passed from recognized Board with 6 (six) months Diploma in Computer Science.
zyxw
wxyz
(iv), It is the further case of the writ petitioners that after the Recruitment Rule for filling up of Technical post was framed by the State Government, writ petitioners, who are technically qualified to be appointed for the post of Technical Assistant were in expectation that for filling up of the post of Technical Assistant, the respondent authorities would duly put up a public advertisement so as to enable the petitioners along with others to participate in the selection process to be undertaken by the respondent authorities, in accordance with the Recruitment Rule; but instead the writ p
