JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, WPT&BC for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the common Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 956/2016, WP(C) 2321/2018 and WP(C) 1216/2016. The present writ appeal is filed by the appellants, who were the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2321/2018. The writ petitioners and the other connected writ petitions are not before this Court.

3. The facts which are revealed from pleadings on record are that the appellants were engaged as Drivers under the Assam Tribal Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ATDA”). Initially no vehicles were allotted to the said authority, however, subsequently under various schemes and for implementation thereof, the certain vehicles were allotted to the ATDA and thereafter, the services of the appellants were engaged as Drivers. A number of communications were addressed between the ATDA and the Government requesting for creation of the posts of Drivers and to regularize the services of the appellants. However, by order dated 21.12.2015, the Department of WPT&BC, Government of Assam rejected the proposal for regularization of the appellants as Drivers on the ground that the appointments were made in non-sanctioned posts and non-existent posts and without prior concurrence or approval of the State Government. The appellants along with other petitioners approached this Court by filing the two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 956/2016 and W.P.(C) No. 1216/2016 challenging the said order dated 21.12.2015. The prayers in these two writ petitions were for regularisation of the services in the ATDA as Drivers and to pay their current and arrear salaries. By way of an interim order, the WPT&BC Department directed as to whether the decision of the Authority taken was to be approved or not. Pursuant to the said order, the WPT&BC Department vide order dated 03.01.2018 again rejected the proposal/decision taken by the Authority proposing for regularisation of the writ petitioners. Being aggrieved W.P.(C) No. 2321/2018 was filed by the petitioners jointly challenging the order dated 31.01.2018. All the three writ petitions were heard together and by the impugned common Judgment & Order, all the three writ petitions were dismissed.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was urged that inspite of several communications being exchanged between the ATDA and the Government seeking creation of posts and subsequent regularization of the services of the appellants/petitioners, but instead the proposals sent for creation of posts and regularization of the services of the appellants/petitioners were rejected. It was submitted that instead of creating and regularizing the petitioners in such posts, the respondent authorities as well as the Government merely extracted services from the petitioners and thus their proposal for creation of posts and subsequent regularisation have been wrongly rejected and the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Department was accordingly required to be interfered with and quashed. The appellants/petitioners had relied upon the Judgment of Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 in support of their contentions and urging before the learned Single Judge to interfere with and set aside and quash the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 whereby the proposal for creation of posts of Driver and the regularisation of the appellants/petitioners in those posts were rejected. It was further urged that the appellants/petitioners were also entitled to monthly salary from the Month of December, 2017 onwards till date after taking into account the due increments along with the financial benefits.

5. The respondents counsel appearing for the State has opposed the co