High Court
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI None appears for the petitioner on call. Heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Assam State Electri city Board (in short, ASEB) on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The writ petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4 alongwith 15 others had approached this Court by filing writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) No. 2372/2006, claiming that th ey are in service under ASEB on fortuitous basis and they have been rendering su ch services for long years. Grievance was expressed in the said writ petition th at there were certain posts in Grade - IV lying vacant, which the respondent ASE B authorities were trying to fill up on a pick and choose basis ignoring the leg itimate entitlement of such petitioners. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 19.05.2006 with the following o rder: (cid:28)Heard Mr. A.K. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Roy, lea rned Standing Counsel, A.S.E.B., appearing for the respondents. The petitioners, who are 18 in number, claimed to be in service under the Assam State Electricity Board on fortuitous basis and further contend that they have r endered such service for long years. According to the petitioners some posts in Grade - IV under the respondents are lying vacant and the petitioners apprehend that the vacant posts may be filled up on a pick and chose basis ignoring the legitimate entitlement of the petitioners. The service rendered by the petitioners on fortuitous basis, however long will n ot vest in them a legal right to claim regularization. However, if the posts are lying vacant under the respondents and filling up of such posts are considered necessary in the exigencies of service it will be obligatory on the part of the respondents to fill up the said posts only by adhering to the procedure prescrib ed by law i.e. after issuing advertisements and holding selections. Mr. Hossain, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that many of the petit ioners, if not all, may have become over-aged in the meantime and therefore a di rection should be issued to the respondents to relax the age of the petitioners so as to make them eligible to apply for the posts as and when advertisement is issued. If the petitioners have become over-aged and the norms in force in the Board per mit/authorise the Board to relax/condone the over-age the petitioners may seek s uch condonation from the authority of the Board by filing appropriate applicatio ns. This will dispose of the writ petition. (cid:29) Thereafter, an advertisement/notification was issued on 16.08.2006 by the Deputy General Manager, Bongaigaon Electrical Circle notifying 45 vacancies in the pos t of Sahayak and inviting applications from persons in the age-group of 18 to 3 6 years as on 01.04.2006, upper age limit being relaxable by 5 years in case of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners responded to the said advertisement/notification and their names were sent by the concerned authority of Employment Exchange, Hatsingimari. Alle ging that they were arbitrarily and illegally not issued the calling letters for the interview, though they fulfilled the requirements laid down in the advertis ement/notification they have approached this Court for a direction to the respon dent No. 2 to allow them to appear in the interview. In paragraph 10 of the petition the petitioners have stated as follows: (cid:28)10.That the petitioners begs to state that as per advertisement/notification da ted 16.8.2006 the upper age limit of the petitioner is 36 on 1st April, 2006 and essential of candidature having 3(three) years working experience certificate in the discipline of Electrician/Wireman fr om recognized institution is required and your humble petitioners are also havin g 3 years working experience and as such your humble petitioners are otherwise q ualified/eligible for the same. But the respondent No.2 inspite of all these req uirement has illegally and arbitrarily did not issue calling letter for the inte rview test which violates the fundamental right of the petitioner and this appli cation before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the candidature of the petiti oners. (cid:29) An Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating that since the petitioners did not have requisite experience, their candidature could not be c onsidered. There is no reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners controverting the statemen ts made in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioners fail to meet the eli gibility criteria. Mr. H K Sarma, learned standing counsel, ASEB has submitted that the assertions of the petitioners that they have been serving since 1986, 1989,1990 and 1999, respectively, have b een categorically denied in the affidavit-in-opposition. Documents annexed as An nexure-1 series issued by the concerned Electrical Sub-Division do not indicate any specified period. He also submits that documents annexed in respect of the p etitioner, namely, Hazarat Ali is issued by a Contractor and not by any authorit y of a Sub-Division or Sub-Station. He submits that the appointments have been a lready made, save and except in respect of 3 posts for which there is a stay ord er of this Court in WP(C) No.961/2007. I have heard and considered the submissions of Mr. Sarma and also peruse d the materials available on record. The advertisement/ notification at sl no.9 provides as follows: (cid:28)9. Whether there is any obligation or arrangement for giving preference to any category of persons is filing up the vacancies: 25% of posts of tota l vacancies are to be filled up from the candidates having minimum three years w ork experience in various Sub-Station/Sub-Divisions of the company/Board on dail y wages /officiating basis. (cid:29) It also provides that qualification required is that of HSLC Examination passed and having ITI trade certificates in the discipline of Electrician/Wiremen from recognized Institution.
Decision
There are no averments in the Writ Petition that they had passed HSLC E xamination or have ITA Trade Certificate. On perusal of the averments made in the petition, it appears that the contention s of the petitioners is that they are qualified in terms of the advertisement/ notification in view of the fact that they have work experience i n the field for three years. Assuming that other qualifications are not necessar y for filling up 25% of the vacancies as indicated in sl.no. 9 of the advertisem ent/notification and the only requirement in respect of 25% of the vacancies is work experience of 3 years, materials and documents annexed in the writ petition , do not demonstrate that the petitioners have minimum three years work experien ce in various Sub-stations/Sub-divisions. In view of the above, I find no merit in this application and accordingly, the s ame is dismissed. No costs.