The court must ensure that appointments made under Article 229 comply with legal eligibility and do not circumvent existing court orders.

1 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel and Standing Counsel, GHC respondent nos. 4 & 5 assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel.

2. The petitioner association has approached this Court by the instant writ petition claiming to be aggrieved by an order dated 24.05.2024 [Annexure-3] whereby the respondent no. 6, Joint Registrar, Itanagar Permanent Bench and presently posted as Officer on Special Duty [Protocol] in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, has been entrusted to discharge the duties of Registrar [Establishment] as In-Charge with immediate effect and until further orders.

3. The petitioner has projected that the respondent no. 6 is not an employee in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court as he is a permanent employee in the Itanagar Permanent Bench and, thus, the respondent no. 6 is not in the feeder cadre, eligible to be promoted to the post of Registrar [Establishment] even on In-Charge basis. The petitioner has further contended that the Order dated 24.05.2024 has been passed purportedly in exercise of the power under Article 229 of the Constitution of India . It has been contended that in view of the pendency of another writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1009/2004 and the observations made in an order passed on 23.02.2024 therein, the Order dated 24.05.2024 is prima facie to circumvent the order passed in the pending writ petition. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Article 229 in the manner exercised herein, is not permissible in law.

4. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel and Standing Counsel, GHC has opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is his contention that the arrangement made by the Order dated 24.05.2024 is only on In-Charge basis and the Order is not passed in circumvention of the orders passed in the proceedings of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1009/2024. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the power to pass such an order is traceable to Rule 6 and Rule 63 of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967 , as amended, read with Article 229 of the Constitution of India .

5. The matter would require further examination. 6. Issue notice, returnable on 19.07.2024. 7. As Mr. Dutta, learned counsel assisting Mr. Mahanta has accepted notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5, issuance of formal notices to the said respondents are dispensed with. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 by tomorrow. Mr. Talukdar shall serve the notice in respect of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 upon the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam by furnishing requisite nos. of copies of the writ petition along with annexures by tomorrow. 8. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 6 by registered post with A/D within 3 [three] working days from today. In addition, as sought for, the petitioner is permitted to take steps to serve notice upon the respondent no. 6 by way of dasti and such steps shall be routed through the Registry. After effecting the dasti service upon the respondent no. 6, a compliance affidavit shall be filed within 2 [two] weeks. 9. Notice is also issued on the interim prayer. 10. List the case on 19.07.2024.