The appointment of a candidate to a contractual post without an application, contrary to advertisement requirements, violates constitutional provisions establishing equitable recruitment practices.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

3. The petitioner herein has assailed the appointment of the respondent No. 3 to the post of the Office Peon (Contractual) primarily on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was appointed to the said post without there being any application filed for the post of the Office Peon (Contractual).

4. Let this Court now take up the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. It is seen from the materials on record that on 12.01.2023, an Advertisement was issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein. In terms with the said advertisement, 3 (three) posts were advertised. Two (2) posts were for Office Peon, which was on scale of pay and of the 2 (two) posts, one was reserved for OBC. The third post advertised was a post of Office Peon (Contractual).

5. The petitioner applied for both the posts i.e. Office Peon and Office Peon (Contractual) by filing separate applications and in that regard the petitioner was issued 2 (two) Roll Nos. being Roll Nos. 32 and C-14. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also applied for the post of Office Peon and they were assigned Roll Nos. 022 and 050 respectively. It is very relevant to take note of the Advertisement dated 12.01.2023 which categorically stipulates at Clause 11 that no application would be accepted after 30.01.2023.

6. Pursuant to the said submission of applications, the Office of the respondent No. 2 prepared 2 (two) separate lists of the applications accepted to the respective posts. One was the list of candidates for the post of Office Peon which contained names of 123 (One Hundred Twenty Three) candidates. The petitioner's name in the said list was at Serial No. 32, whereas the name of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were at Serial Nos. 22 and 50 respectively. It is very pertinent at this stage to mention that a perusal of the Call Letters which were issued on 28.03.2023 enclosed as Annexure-5 (colly) to the writ petition would show that the respective Roll Nos. for the post of Office Peon in the scale of pay given to the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on the basis of the Serial No. maintained in the list of candidates for the post of Office Peon.

7. It is further seen from the materials on record, more particularly, the Annexure-3 that the Office of the respondent No. 2 had also prepared a list of candidates for the post of Office Peon (Contractual) wherein the petitioner's name is found at Serial No. 14, wherein the names of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not there. The compilation of separate lists which are Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 to the writ petition therefore makes it clear that the respondent No. 2 envisaged separate selection to the respective posts. It also appears that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 only applied for Office Peon and not Office Peon (Contractual).

8. Be that as it may, the respondent No. 2 issued Call Letters to the petitioner and the private respondents. It is interesting to take note of that in respect to the petitioner, the Call Letter specifically referred to Roll No. 32 which was meant for the post of the Office Peon on the scale of pay and Roll No. C-14 which was for t