IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary appointments without sanction cannot be regularized, but differently-abled individuals must be considered for future employment opportunities.

J UDGMENT :

(Kaushik Goswami, J)

Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, and Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsels, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for respondent No.4.

2. By way of this writ appeal, the appellant/petitioner is assailing the judgment & order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1573/2013.

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner was temporarily appointed by the respondent No.2 as a Helper to the Art Instructor in the Government B.D.S. Deaf and Dumb School, Kahilipara, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred to as “school”) on 17.05.1994, on a consolidated fixed pay of Rs. 900/- per month, for a period of three months. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was extended from time to time by the respondent No.2 after expiry of every three months, with a day’s break, on the condition that his appointment will be automatically terminated on expiry of the said period of three months.

It is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that the appellant/petitioner, having completed his probationary period, though applied for regularization of his post, no regularization, as sought, has been made by the respondent No.2. It is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that though he was appointed initially as a Helper, however, due to shortage of staff he has been working as a Art Teacher but he was receiving a consolidated payment of Rs. 900/- per month despite the pay revisions that had taken place from time to time. Accordingly, the appellant/petitioner filed the WP(C) No. 1573/2013 seeking regularization of the post. However, the learned Single Judge by order dated 06.03.2019, though rejected the claim of regularization, directed the Department of Social Welfare to consider the case of the appellant/petitioner in the selection process to be undertaken by the said department and also directed the petitioner to submit representation so as to enable the authorities to process the matter of condonation of age of the petitioner enabling him to participate in future opportunities with further rider not to terminate the services of the appellant petitioner pending his participation in the next selection process. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent authorities to pay monthly honorarium of Rs. 7,000/- or such enhanced honorarium to which the petitioner may be entitled. Having not been fully satisfied with the directions given by the learned Single Judge vide the aforesaid judgment & order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner.

4. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the petitioner having put in almost 25 years of service is entitled for regularization. He further submits that the petitioner being a disabled person is entitled for the benefits and protections contained under the Provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995.

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department appearing for respondent No.4, and Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2 submit that the nature of appointment of the appellant/petitioner being temporary and the post being a non sanctioned post, the services of the appellant/petitioner cannot be regularized and, therefore, the judgment & order under appeal warrants no interference from this appellant Court.

6. We have given our prudent consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, and have perused the material available on record. We have also considered the case laws submitted at the bar.

7. The issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is wheth