Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment orders becomes secondary.

ORDER :

1. Considering the subject matter of dispute and also the fact that this writ petition is pending since the year 2014, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The subject matter of this writ petition is a selection which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 28.01.2014 for certain post in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar.

2. Before coming to the issue which has come up for adjudication, it would be convenient to place on record the brief facts of the case.

3. Two petitioners have joined together with a common cause of action. The petitioners contend that there were both rendering their services as Grade-IV employees in the office of the SDO (Civil), Parbatjhora, Kazigaon in the BTAD since the establishment of the said offices. The engagement of the petitioners as Grade-IV staff was in accordance with an order dated 18.09.2004 it is the case of the petitioners that they had continued in the said post without any break and to the full satisfaction of the authorities. In the year 2014, an advertisement was published by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar for the appointment of Grade-IV posts for which the minimum qualification was Class-VIII passed.

4. Both the petitioners being Matriculate and thus eligible for such appointment had applied for the said appointment and accordingly on 28.02.2014, the interview was held in which the petitioners claimed to have fared well. The petitioners also rely upon the experience gained by them while working as temporary employees pursuant to their appointments in the year 2004. While the petitioners were legitimately expecting that they would be selected for such appointment, on 16.09.2014, a select list was published in which respondent Nos. 6 to 11 were declared to be selected and on the same date i.e., 16.09.2014, the appointment letters were issued to the said respondents. It is the specific case of the petitioners that such appointment was illegal in view of violation of Clause-7 of the advertisement which requires that appointment would be made after police verification. The petitioners have categorically averred that no such police verification was done before the appointments were offered to the private respondents. The petitioners have additionally contended that their past experience was wholly ignored.

5. I have heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Sri. D. Borah, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 whereas Ms. R.B. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, BTC is present for the respondent Nos. 2. Sri. M. Dutta, learned counsel has appeared for the private respondent Nos. 6 and 8 to 11. The materials before this Court have also been carefully examined.

6. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned selection culminating in the select list dated 16.09.2014 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the past experience of the petitioners have been wholly ignored by which grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. It is contended that by working for a long period of time since their appointments vide order dated 18.09.2004, the petitioners have gained sufficient experience. By drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 18.09.2014 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, the learned counsel submits that the said order would reveal that the fresh appointees were posted at different places temporarily to acquire knowledge on their official activities. By referring to the advertisement dated 28.01.2014, more specifically Caluse-7 thereof, appointment was to be made only after police verification as per procedure. However, in the instant case the select list was published on 16.09.2014 and on the same day, the appointments were made. It is submitted that the mandatory requirement on having police verification was wholly done away with which is absolutely against the interest of public service.

7. In support of her submissi