JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 5850/2013 & WP(C) 5855/2013. Also heard Mr. S. Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 5998/2013. Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries Department, Assam, has appeared for the official respondents in all these writ petitions.

2. Common questions of fact and law are involved in all the 3 (three) writ petitions.

Therefore, these writ petitions are being taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions were appointed as Extension Officers (E.Os) in the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam on various dates. Apprehending termination of their service in view of the report dated 18/05/2013 submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam indicating certain anomalies in the recruitment process and the proposed move on the part of the departmental authorities to issue orders of termination of service to the petitioners, they have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions.

4. The factual matrix of these cases, briefly stated, is as follows :-

(i) The Director of Industries, Government of Assam, had issued an advertisement dated 30/11/1993 inviting applications for filling up few vacant posts of Extension Officers (EOs). Upon conclusion of the recruitment process, a final select list of 150 candidates was prepared, and appointment orders were issued to as many as 140 candidates. However, the recruitment process was called into question by some of the unsuccessful candidates by filing a number of writ petitions before this Court, registered and numbered as Civil Rule Nos. 128/1996, 3988/1996, 2340/1996, 4730/1995, 196/1996 and 933/1996. After hearing the petitioners as well as the departmental counsel and upon taking note of an enquiry report prepared by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries Department dated 21/08/1996 projecting that there were several irregularities in the selection process, the learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the writ petitions by the common jugdement and order dated 01/09/1997, inter-alia,holding that the entire selection procedure was a farce and, therefore, fresh advertisement ought to be issued by indicating the number of available vacancies and the selection should be made as per the prescribed procedure. In the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997, it has, however, been observed that those who were already working/appointed, they should be given notice and necessary action should be taken against them, if it is found that they have been appointed without being properly and duly selected. Before cancelling the appointment of the persons so appointed, notices were also directed to be served upon them.

(ii) The judgment and order dated 01/09/1997 was apparently passed after hearing the aggrieved candidates as well as the departmental authorities but the appointed candidate were not made parties in those proceedings. As such, a number of selected candidates, who had in the meantime been appointed in the posts of EOs, had preferred appeals being Writ Appeal No. 544/1997 and Writ Appeal No. 549/1997 before the Division Bench assailing the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997, primarily on the ground that the said judgment and order was passed without hearing them. The Division Bench had disposed of the Writ Appeals by the judgment and order dated 18/11/1999, making some modification in the order dated 01/09/1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by providing that if the writ appellants submit reply to the show cause notices issued to them than the authorities would consider the same without being prejudiced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997.

(iii) Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench, a sub-committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the records for issuing