JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. W.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 10 whereas, Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 14 to 19.

2. This writ petition has a chequered history and, therefore, the facts and circumstances, shorn of unnecessary details, are briefly narrated herein below:-

(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. Based on the aforesaid process, appointment orders had apparently been issued to as many as 140 candidates. However, the recruitment process was called into question by some of the candidates, who were not appointed, 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 dated 21/08/1996 prepared by the then Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries Department, projecting several irregularities in the selection process, the learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the writ petitions by the common judgment 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 that 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 working/appointed, they should be given notice and necessary action should be taken against them, if it is found that they had been appointed without being properly and duly selected. The order dated 01/09/1997 was apparently passed after hearing the aggrieved candidates as well as the departmental authorities but the selected/appointed candidates were not made parties in those proceedings. As such, a number of selected candidates, who had in the meantime been appointed in the post of E.Os, 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 judgment and order was passed without hearing them.

(ii) The Division Bench had disposed of the 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 show-cause notices. Thereafter, identical show cause notices were issued to as many as 82 selected candidates asking them to submit all testimonials such as academic certificates, call letters for interview, appointment letter etc. The notices were evidently issued in terms of the judgment and order dated 18/11/1999 passed by the Division Bench.

(iv) It appears that the selected candidates had submitted their replies to the show cause notices denying the allegations brought against them. In the meantime, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department, had issued a communicatio