Irregular Not Illegal: Gauhati HC Reinstates 771 ASTC Contractual Employees, Citing Need for Natural Justice and Manpower - 2025-10-11

Gauhati High Court Reinstates 771 ASTC Contractual Employees, Cites Violation of Natural Justice

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has set aside the termination orders of 771 contractual employees of the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC), directing their reinstatement until regular appointments are made. The court, presided over by Justice Kardak Ete, ruled that while the initial appointments were irregular, they were not illegal, and the mass termination without a hearing was unjust.

Case Background

A batch of writ petitions was filed by the State Transport Workers Association and numerous individual employees challenging the termination orders issued by the ASTC on May 30, 2023. The petitioners, who had been serving in various capacities such as mechanics, drivers, and assistants since as early as 2013, were released from their contractual services effective May 31, 2023.

The termination followed a decision from a high-level review meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of Assam, which found that the 771 employees were appointed without following due procedure, specifically the issuance of a public advertisement. Consequently, the ASTC Board of Directors approved the decision not to renew their contracts.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Stance: Senior Counsels Mr. K. N. Choudhury and Mr. B. D. Konwar, representing the employees, argued that the termination was a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. They contended:

- The decision was based on a verification process conducted behind their backs, without affording them any opportunity to be heard.

- While contractual, their long service entitled them to a show-cause notice before such a drastic step.

- The ASTC's plan to replace them with outsourced workers amounted to substituting one set of ad-hoc employees with another, a practice deemed impermissible in service jurisprudence.

- Their appointment orders mentioned they were selected after a "test and interview," making their appointments irregular, not illegal.

Respondents' Defence: Mr. P. Nayak, the Additional Advocate General representing the ASTC and the State, defended the termination, submitting that:

- The appointments were void from the beginning as they were made without public advertisement, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

- An inquiry revealed that no proper procedure of advertisement, written test, or interview was followed.

- As the employment was contractual and the term had expired, renewal was not a right, and no notice was required.

- Invoking the "useless formality theory," he argued that a hearing would not have changed the outcome since the appointments were fundamentally flawed.

Court's Analysis and Key Observations

Justice Kardak Ete, after examining the arguments and legal precedents, made a crucial distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments.

"However, if the appointments/engagements were preceded by test and interview as reflected in their appointment orders, same may be term as irregular and not illegal," the court observed.

The judgment emphasized that while the state is not obligated to renew a contract, the context of long-standing service and the sudden termination based on an adverse finding required adherence to fairness.

The court also took note of the practical consequences of the mass release, highlighting the respondents' own admission that it would lead to an "acute shortage of manpower."

"The petitioners, in my considered opinion, ought to have been allowed to continue till the posts are filled up on regular basis by following the constitutional scheme of public employment as the requirement of their services in the public interest is clearly discernable," Justice Ete stated in the judgment.

The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. , noting that continuing with irregular appointments for years only to terminate them abruptly can be a form of exploitation.

Final Verdict and Implications

In its final order, the Gauhati High Court quashed the impugned release orders dated May 30, 2023. The court directed the ASTC to:

1. Reinstate the petitioners and allow them to continue their service until the posts are filled through a regular appointment process or are abolished.

2. The employees will not be entitled to back wages for the period they were out of service.

3. The petitioners must be allowed to participate in any future regular selection process, with a provision for age condonation if required, subject to eligibility.

This landmark judgment provides significant relief to the 771 employees and reinforces the principle that government bodies, even when dealing with contractual staff, must act fairly and adhere to the principles of natural justice.