Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Toli Gamlin - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP and Ors - Respondents
WP(C) 467 of 2024
Decided on : 23-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Panging.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Picha, Ms P. Pangu, Mr. R. Saikia
An ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee; only a regularly selected employee may fill such posts to ensure administrative integrity.
Headnote:(A) Arunachal Pradesh Government Orders and Policies - Clarification of Posting and Designations - The petitioner, a Technical Assistant, challenged the appointment of an Extension Officer to the charge of Assistant Project Officer (APO) despite having been notified as APO. The authority clarified that the posting of the petitioner as APO was an operational error and that the Extension Officer was correctly appointed to hold charge as per established policy guidelines. (Paras 6, 20, 27)
(B) Employment Law - Temporary Appointment and Replacement - The court reaffirmed that an ad-hoc or temporary employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee, and must only be replaced by a regularly selected employee to maintain administrative integrity. (Paras 9, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially placed as Technical Assistant and later notified as APO, but the authority recognized this as a mistake, clarifying that only the Extension Officer could hold that charge based on seniority and applicable guidelines. (Paras 4, 20)
Findings of Court:
The decision confirms that the consequences of operational errors can be rectified, and the rightful post should be held by appropriately qualified candidates under relevant rules. (Paras 20, 28)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner, despite his appointment as APO, could be replaced by a person in a lower rank and without the necessary official designation. (Paras 6, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while the temporary appointment of the petitioner did not preclude the proper process of appointing personnel based on rules and seniority, his claim was based on administrative errors that had since been rectified. (Paras 26, 27)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on designation errors and absorption. (Para 1 , 9) |
| 2. challenge to order permitting respondent no.5 to hold charge (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. argument against respondent no.5's appointment (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner's claim regarding qualifications and rank (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. respondent's claim regarding authority to appoint (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. misrepresentation of petitioner's position (Para 15) |
| 7. court's findings on the parties' arguments (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. clarification on recruitment policies for apo position (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. mistakes in appointment and their implications (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. legality of respondent no.5 holding charge as deserving candidate (Para 27) |
| 11. dismissal of writ petition based on lack of merit (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned Standing Counsel, Rural Development Department, for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 as well as Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel, for respondent No.5 and Ms P. Pangu, learned State counsel, for respondent No.3.
2. By filling this writ petition the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 08.10.2024, passed by the DC-cum-CEO, Rural Development Department Leparada District, Basar, whereby, the respondent No.5, namely, Shri Karsen Basar Extension Officer (RE) CD Block Basar, is allowed to hold the charge of Assistant Project Officer (RE), Leparada District in his own grade and scale of pay in addition to his normal duty till posting of regular Assistant Project Officer (RE), in place of the petitioner.
3. Briefly put, the petitioner is working as Technical Assistant (IWDP), who has been allowed to look after the charge of Assistant Project Officer (RE) (in short APO (RE)) in Shi-Yomi District, DRDA, vide order dated 24.06.2020, initially for a period of 2(two) months and extended from time to time. Vide transfer and posting order dated 21.02.2024, issued by the Director, Rural Development Department, the petitioner was transferred and posted as APO (RE) from Shi-Yomi District to Basar in the District of Leparada. However, he was released from Shi-Yomi District only on 10.06.2024, in view of the simultaneous election of Parliamentary and State Legislative Assembly during the relevant point of time. Accordingly, the petitioner joined his service at Basar, Leparada District on 11.06.2024. The DC-cum- CEO, Leparada District issued an Order dated 26.06.2024 indicating the posting of the petitioner under the establishment of Project Director, DRDA, Basar, Leparada District, as APO (RE).
4. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide an Order dated 22.02.2024 has absorbed 588 numbers of employees from the District Rural Development Agencies (DRDA) in the department of Rural Development wherein, at serial No.64, the petitioner has been shown to be absorbed as APO (RE) at Shi-Yomi District.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that while discharging his duties as APO (RE) at Basar, he came to know that the respondent No.5 who is Extension Officer (RE) Basar CD Block has applied for in-charge APO (RE). On further inquiry, the petitioner has come to know that the Hon’ble MLA, 29- Basar (ST) Constituency vide its note dated 15.06.2024, has recommended the name of the private respondent, to allow the respondent No.5 to look after the charge of APO (RE), DRDA Basar. The petitioner has filed a representation dated 11.07.2024 before the respondent authority, praying for continuation of his service as APO (RE), DRDA Basar.
6. It is contended that vide an order dated 26.07.2024, signed on 05.08.2024, the respondent authority has approved for temporary charge of APO (RE) Basar, Leparada District in favour of the respondent No.5. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 submitted his joining report dated 08.08.2024 as APO (RE) in-charge. Thereafter, the DC-cum-CEO Rural Development Department, Leparada District vide order dated 08.10.2024, has allowed the respondent No.
