IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that casual appointments made in violation of state policy cannot claim protection or continuation of service.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail a Letter no. CNE/PIMS/GENERAL/2020/37 dated 01.03.2022 [Annexure-B] issued by the respondent no. 2 and an Order no. DCWKA-ESTT-PIMS/37/2020-21 [Annexure-C] dated 09.03.2022. A further direction has been sought for to allow the petitioner to continue in service in terms of his Appointment Order dated 28.02.2017. By the order dated 09.03.2022, the petitioner’s appointment made vide Appointment Order dated 28.02.2017, came to be terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2022.

2. The factual matrix of the case in narrow compass. By an Order dated 28.02.2017 [Annexure-1] passed by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner came to be appointed as a LDA –cum- Counter Assistant on casual basis at General Administration Rest House, Wokha in a scale of pay Rs. 1,000-25-1,125-30-1425-35-1880/- per month plus other allowances as admissible from time to time w.e.f. 01.03.2017 till further order. It was specifically mentioned in the Order dated 28.02.2017 that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary casual basis and was liable to be terminated without any further notice. On receipt of the Order dated 28.02.2017, the petitioner immediately joined in the post and started discharging her duties.

3. After rendering about five years of service as LDA –cum- Counter Assistant, the petitioner came across the Letter bearing no. CNE/PIMS/GENERAL/2020/37 [Annexure-2] dated 01.03.2022 of the respondent no. 2, addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners including the respondent no. 3. Apart from dilating on the issue of payment of salaries and wages through e-Pay Bill System based on Personal Information Management System [PIMS], the respondent no. 2 by in said Letter had observed that certain contingency/casual employees’ appointments were made in the Office of the Deputy Commissioners on exigency and stop gap arrangement till the conduct of recruitment processes through the District Level Recruitment Board [DLRB]. Observing that those kind of appointment being temporary, are not liable for PIMS registration, the Deputy Commissioners were intimated that the posts occupied by those contingency/casual appointees were extended only up to 28.02.2022 and thereafter, they should be terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2022.

4. Close on the heels of the Letter dated 01.03.2022 of the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 issued the impugned Order bearing no. DCHKA-ESTT-PIMS/37/2020-21 dated 09.03.2022 [Annexure-3] whereby appointments of seven nos. of contingency/casual appointees made in his office on exigency and stop gap arrangement were terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The impugned Order made mention of the Letter dated 01.03.2022 of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner is one of the seven contingency/casual appointees whose appointments were terminated by the impugned Order dated 09.03.2022 w.e.f. 01.03.2022.

5. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Livika, learned State Counsel for all the respondents.

6. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Letter dated 01.03.2022, the respondent no. 2 had observed that the posts occupied by the contingency/casual appointees would be extended up to 28.02.2022 and such an observation was made on the premise that the advertisement for the recruitment to various posts through the DLRB would be made by that time. It is submitted by him that till date, no advertisement for filling up the posts made vacant due to the impugned Order dated 09.03.2022 has been made, meaning thereby, the appointments to those posts are going to happen in the near future and as such, the services of the petitioner can be extended till recruitment through the DLRB is complete. Mr. Jamir has also referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajbinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in [1988] Suppl. SCC 428, to buttress his submissions.

7. Ms. Livika, learned