JUDGMENT :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6, Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8, 11, 13, 15 to 19, 21 and 22. The respondent nos. 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 23 and 24 have not appeared despite deemed service of notice through newspaper publication.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the provisional gradation list published on 29.12.2017 and final gradation list published on 01.10.2019 so far as the seniority of the petitioners and the respondent nos. 8 to 24 are concerned, and for a direction to the respondent authorities to publish a fresh gradation list by placing the petitioners above the respondent nos. 8 to 24.

3. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to a selection process initiated by the APSC vide advertisement dated 19.08.1997 to fill up 27 vacant posts of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO for short), the petitioners had participated in the selection process. The name of the petitioners appeared in the select list published on 17.07.2000 and accordingly, the petitioners were appointed as CDPOs in the Social Welfare Department in the year 2001. On 29.12.2017, the respondent authorities had published a provisional gradation list, where the name of the petitioners had appeared below that of the respondent nos. 8 to 24. It is projected that on enquiry, the petitioners acquired information that a Cabinet Memorandum dated 16.06.2000 was moved with a proposal of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Department to regularise the service of 18 CDPOs/Superintendent of Home in relaxation of rules 5(c) and 11 of the Assam Social Welfare (Recruitment and Promotion) Service Order, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “1994 Service Order”). Thereafter, a Cabinet decision was taken on 13.10.2000 on the said proposal, which was followed by a notification dated 16.11.2000, issued by the competent authority of the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department and accordingly, the service of the respondent nos. 8 to 24 were regularised, however, without concurrence of the APSC. Some of the petitioners had submitted their objection against the provisional seniority list, which was not addressed to and thereafter, final seniority list was published on 01.10.2019 in respect of Class-II Officers in the Social Welfare Department, wherein the names of the petitioners were placed below that of the respondent nos. 8 to 24.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners:

4. It was submitted that the decision to regularise the service of the respondent nos. 8 to 24 was bad on facts and in law. It was submitted that it was the admitted case of the private respondent nos. 8 to 24 and the State respondent nos. 1 to 6 as well as the APSC (respondent no. 7) that the private respondents were appointed on ad hoc basis by invoking Regulation 3(f) of the APSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “APSC Regulation 1951”) which was not in accordance with the prescription of recruitment envisaged under the 1994 Service Order. It was submitted that it was also not disputed that in the exercise carried out by the APSC for regularising the service of CDPO/Superintendent of Home/Probation Officer in the Social Welfare Department, all the private respondent nos. 8 to 24 had failed. Accordingly, it was submitted that on the failure of the respondent nos. 8 to 24 to clear the regularisation drive undertaken by the APSC, the service of all the said ad hoc appointees ought to have been terminated. It was submitted that by regularising the service of the “faile