The court's decision was influenced by the principle that the petitioners' claim to hold their appointment from the year 2001 was justified due to the interference of the authorities' decisions by the court and the benefits given to a similarly situated incumbent.

1.Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondents.

2. The claim raised in this writ petition which is filed by 6 nos. of petitioners is with regard to treating the appointments of the petitioners as Rifleman (GD) from the date of the initial appointment in the year 2001 and not the subsequent date which was pursuant to certain directions of this Court.

3. There is a chequered history of this case and a brief narration would be necessary.

4. In the year 2001, a recruitment process was initiated, amongst others, for the post of Rifleman (GD) under the Assam Rifles.

5. In the said recruitment, the petitioners who had offered their candidatures were held to be qualified in the written, physical and medical tests and upon their selection, they were appointed on 23.05.2001. After such appointment, they were sent for basic training which is for a period of 9 months. However, in the midst of such training, vide an order dated 31.10.2001, the petitioners along with few others were discharged from service on the ground that they were medically unfit. Since the aforesaid action was not preceded by any notice or opportunity, separate writ petitions were filed in this Court.

6. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide a common judgment and order dated 10.08.2012 by directing the respondent authorities to conduct a Review Medical Board in which the petitioners were to be examined. In compliance with the said direction, a Review Medical Board was constituted in which the petitioners were re-examined. After such re-examination, an order was passed on 29.12.2012, whereby the petitioners were declared to be medically fit. However, on the ground of being over aged, they were not inducted in the service. The aforesaid action led to further rounds of litigation. The aforesaid writ petitions including writ appeals were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and finally vide order dated 26.10.2014, the impugned action of the respondents was interfered with and consequential directions given. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners were re-appointed in the year 2015.

7. It is the claim of the petitioners that the appointment should be given effect from the original date, i.e., 23.05.2001 with a further claim for payment of arrear salaries.

8. Ms. S. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that due to no fault of the petitioners, they had to face all the harassment and only upon intervention by this Court, the matter was sorted out. It is submitted that the initial appointment made on 23.05.2001, having being preceded by the necessary tests including written, physical and medical and the discharge of the petitioners on medical ground dated 31.10.2001 being interfered with by this Court, the claim of the petitioners is reasonable, justified and bona fide.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that similarly situated person have been given the benefits. In this connection, reference has been made to an order dated 07.06.2019 passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 111/2018 filed by one Shri Sant Lal. The aforesaid order which has been brought on record by way of a reply affidavit would reveal that the said order was passed in consonance with the judgment dated 26.10.2014 (wrongly recorded as 26.09.2014) passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 153/2014, WA/119/2014 etc. The aforesaid fact has been verified with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench which is also annexed at page 58 of the writ petition. The learned counsel accordingly submits that there should not be any impediment in granting the relief as prayed for.

10. Per contra, Ms. Gayan, the learned C.G.C. has submitted that the petitioners were re-appointed only in the year 2015, pursuant to the direction of this Court. Specific reference has been made to the part of the order dated 26.10.2014 of the Division Bench which is found in paragraph 14. It is subm