Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
NANI TAGIA, J.
Banboh Nyitan S/o Shri Tarung Nyitan and Anr – Appellants
Versus
The State Of AP and Ors. – Appellants
WP(C) 386 of 2021
Decided on : 28-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 –Posts of Clerk – Appointment – Challenged - Respondents No. 2 & 3 have contested case by filing a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed, the respondents No. 2 & 3 have not denied creation of various posts including 4(four) posts, each, of Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk and UDC-cum-Accountant, vide order, dated , issued by Commissioner (Finance) - Respondents No. 2 & 3, in counter-affidavit filed; have, neither, denied contention raised by petitioners, nor, have averred anywhere in counter-affidavit that appointment of respondents No. 4 to 15 were made on basis of selection made in accordance with Recruitment Rule as well as by following constitutional scheme for making an appointment to a public post – Held, Consequent upon setting aside of the aforesaid orders of appointment of respondents No. 4 to 15 - Respondents No. 4 to 15 are also found to be not entitled to work as Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, respectively, in Department of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on basis of any order or orders of appointment issued by respondent authorities subsequent to orders of appointments of Respondents No. 4 to 15, referred to hereinabove, unless such appointments are made following relevant Recruitment Rule as well as constitutional scheme for making appointment to a public post - Writ petition stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Abhai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Subu Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents No. 1 to 3; and Mr. U. K. Nair, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the private Respondents No. 4 to 15.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the appointment of respondents No. 4 to 15 as Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, by issuing an order of appointment on various dates, such as, 28.04.2017, 26.05.2017 and 20.06.2017, by the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, with a further direction to the respondent authorities to advertise the aforesaid post of Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, and fill up the same through the competitive examinations as per the relevant Recruitment Rule.
3. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition by the petitioners, briefly stated, are as follows:
The petitioner No. 1 is a graduate having received his degree in Bachelor of Arts in 2016, from Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Doimukh, Itanagar. The petitioner No. 2 is the president of All Arunachal Pradesh Anti-Corruption Association (AAPACA).
According to the petitioners, the respondents No. 4 to 15 were appointed as Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, by the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, without following the due process of selection in accordance with the Recruitment Rule and the constitutional scheme of public employment, by issuing the appointment orders to the respondents No. 4 to 15 on various dates, vide various Office Order numbers, which are, as follows:
(2). Respondent No. 5 was appointed as LDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(III) dated 20.06.2017.
(3). Respondent No. 6 was appointed as LDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(II) dated 26.05.2017.
(4). Respondent No. 7 was appointed as LDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(IV) dated 20.06.2017.
(5). Respondent No. 8 was appointed as UDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(III) dated 26.05.2017.
(6). Respondent No. 9 was appointed as UDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(II) dated 26.05.2017.
(7). Respondent No. 10 was appointed as UDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(I) dated 28.04.2017.
(8). Respondent No. 11 was appointed as UDC vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/Pt(IV) dated 20.06.2017.
(9). Respondent No. 12 was appointed as UDC-cum-Accountant vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/(Pt-IV) dated 20.06.2017.
(10). Respondent No. 13 was appointed as UDC-cum-Accountant vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/(Pt-III) dated 20.06.2017.
(11). Respondent No. 14 was appointed as UDC-cum-Accountant vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/(Pt-II) dated 20.06.2017.
(12). Respondent No. 15 was appointed as UDC-cum-Accountant vide No. DA/TRY/53/90/(Pt-I) dated 20.06.2017.
The petitioners contend that the State respondents by an order, dated 04.07.2016, issued by the Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide order No. DA/TRY/37/2011, had created various posts in the Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which included 4(four) posts, each, of the Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, respectively. It is on the above 4(four) posts each of Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, created by the aforesaid order dated 04.07.2016, issued by the Commissioner(Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, that the respondents No. 4 to 15 have been appointed as Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, and Upper Division Clerk-cum-Accountant, respectively, as described hereinabove, without following the due process of selection in accordance with the Recruitment Rule, besides, in violation of the constitutional scheme of making
Irregular daily wager appointments without advertisement violate Articles 14 & 16; no regularization or reinstatement even with prior equal pay directions; termination upheld as backdoor entries depr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that appointments to public offices must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity and fair selection processes as prescribed by law.
Long-term employment based on transparent recruitment cannot be invalidated solely due to procedural irregularities, reinforcing principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations.
Appointments in public service must adhere to the order of merit as recommended by the relevant authority, and back-door entries are impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
