IMPORTANT POINT
Long-term employees in sanctioned posts must be considered for regularization, as established in the Uma Devi case and relevant government directives.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.1664/2019 and WP(C) No.3925/2023 and Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.3774/2019. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the State respondents and Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 & 8, in WP(C) No.3925/2023.

2. By filing these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to regularize their services against the sanctioned vacant posts of Circle Organiser, Village Defence Organization (in short COVDO) under Nalbari District at Tihu, Beslor and Bhangnamari Police Stations in the District of Nalbari, Assam. The petitioners have also challenged their engagement orders dated 25.01.2018 and 05.11.2018 and discharged from service as Home Guards. The petitioners further challenges the appointment of respondent Nos.7 & 8, dated 24.05.2022, as COVDO.

3. Having regard to the similarity of the factual background and the issue raised, these Writ Petitions were heard analogously and the same are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The petitioners in WP(C) No.1664/2019 were appointed as casual employee on 01.06.1993 and 01.03.1996 respectively, on temporary basis and were attached to Belsor and Tihu Police Stations as COVDO. Their services were extended from time to time and they have been discharging the service from their respective places of posting. The petitioners have submitted representations from time to time for regularization of their services as COVDO.

5. While the petitioners were serving as COVDO, a W.T. Message dated 28.11.2005 was issued to the Belsor and Tihu Police Stations, by which the services of the petitioners were terminated. Against such termination, the petitioners filed the WP(C) No.540/2006. On issuance of notice in the WP(C) No.540/2006, the petitioners were allowed to serve as COVDO under the aforesaid Police Stations. Therefore, they have withdrawn the said Writ Petition on 24.02.2006, with a liberty to approach the Court again, if occasion arises, which this court had allowed. After serving for a long time as COVDO, again the petitioners were terminated from their services vide order dated 07.02.2015, issued by the Superintendent of Pollice, Nalbari, treating the petitioners as Home Guard.

6. Being aggrieved, again the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the termination order dated 07.02.2015, which was registered as WP(C) No.1804/2015. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Additional Director of Police (A), Assam issued an advertisement dated 01.03.2016, for filling up the vacant posts of COVDO in different Districts of Assam, including the Nalbari District. This court directed the respondent authorities that the advertisement dated 01.03.2016, be kept in abeyance in respect of Nalbari District till the disposal of the WP(C) No.1804/2015.

7. This Court, vide order dated 02.02.2017, has disposed of the WP(C) No.1804/2015 and set aside the termination order dated 07.02.2015 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners were reinstated, however, under different police stations, namely, in Bhangnamari and Sialmari Police Stations as fresh appointees. In fact, the petitioners ought to have been reinstated as COVDO under the same police station i.e. Belsor Police Station and Tihu Police Station. The petitioners having reinstated as COVDO under police stations, other than the police stations i.e. Belsor and Tihu, a Contempt Case was filed before this Court being Cont. Case (C) No.233/2017, whereby this Court closed the Contempt Case by observing that the direction by the Court was to reinstate the petitioners and not to reinstate the petitioners with the same place of posting. It has been held that as to where a person is to be posted, is within the domain of the authority. The petitioners were appointed as honorary COVDO but not under Bels