IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that appointments made in violation of interim directions are unsustainable, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to such orders in recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions i.e., WP(C)6148/2012 and WP(C)1076/2015. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel representing the General Administrative Department, for the State respondents and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Sharma appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 in WP(C)1076/2015.

2. The writ petitioner had instituted WP(C)6148/2012, assailing an advertisement dated 03.07.2012, issued by the Director of Archives, Assam for recruitment to 02(two) posts of LDA/JAA on the ground that the posts in question, considering the cadre strength of the cadre of Junior Assistant, could not have been exclusively reserved for Reserved community candidates.

3. WP(C)/1076/2015 has been so instituted assailing the appointments as effected in respect of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 therein, in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 03.07.2012.

4. The Director of Archives, Assam had issued an advertisement dated 03.07.2012, inviting applications for recruitment against two posts of LDA/JAA in the establishment. The petitioner, who is a General community candidate, being aggrieved by the reservation of the two posts so advertised solely for reserved community candidates, had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)6148/2012, assailing the said advertisement.

5. The petitioner, in the writ petition had contended that the cadre strength of the post of LDA/JAA, in the Directorate of Archives, Assam being 03(three), 02 posts vacant could not have been reserved in the said advertisement for reserved communities, inasmuch as, the same would be in excess of the quota mandated for Reserved community candidates in the cadre of LDA/JAA, in the establishment and the same accordingly, would require an interference.

6. This Court, vide order dated 17.12.2012; while permitting the respondent authorities to proceed with the selection process in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 03.07.2012, had directed that no appointment in pursuance to the same shall be so effected. It is seen that the respondent authorities had proceeded with the selection process and had published a select list on 18.12.2012 and had therein, incorporated the names of Smti Luna Deka Baruah and Smti Nilima Roy Deka for appointment against the post of Junior Assistant so advertised vide the advertisement dated 03.07.2012. The said selected candidates, not being extended with an order of appointment had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)5581/2013. This court, vide Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2014, on considering the issues so arising in the matter, proceeded to allow the same by directing the Director of Archives, Assam to issue appointment orders to the petitioners within the time frame so prescribed. It is seen that thereafter, the matter was processed at the departmental level and in pursuance to the Government in the Secretariat Administration (Establishment) Department, granting it’s No Objection for compliance with the directions passed by this Court vide the said Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2014 in WP(C)5581/2013, the Director of Archives, Assam, vide office orders both dated 25.04.2014, proceeded to appoint said Smti Luna Deka Baruah and Smti Nilima Roy Deka against the post of LDA/JAA. Accordingly, the said selected persons joined their respective services and are continuing against the same till date.

7. Being aggrieved by the appointments so effected in respect of the said selected candidates in pursuance to the advertisement dated 03.07.2012, the petitioner, by impleading the said persons as respondents no. 3 & 4 had instituted WP(C)1076/2015, assailing the appointments so effected in their cases. The said appointments are being assailed on the ground that the same was effected in clear violation of the interim directions as passed by this Court, vide order dated 17.12.2012 in WP(C)6148/2012.

8. Mr. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel for the peti