Judgment · High Court

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH Heard Mr.E.Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant in Misc.Ca se and respondent No.7 in the main writ petition. Also heard Mr.R.Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.M.R.Pathak, learned counsel for the resp ondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.A.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents N o.3 and 4. This application has been filed for vacating the interim order p assed by this Court earlier on 26.8.2011 whereby this Court had passed a directi on that the appointment of the respondent No.7 shall, if already stands appoint ed, remain suspended until further order. The applicant has filed this applicati on stating that the respondent No.7 had already been selected as per the norms a pplicable for appointment to Grade-IV posts i.e. by way of requisition through t he District Employment Exchange. Mr. M.R.Pathak has pointed out that appointment to Grade-III and IV are to be done as provided under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisat ion) Rules, 2010, first notified on 15.11.2010 by the Government of Assam. As p er Rule 5 sub-clause (2) of the aforesaid Rules, it has been provided that appo intment in respect of Grade-III and IV posts is to be made from the list of cand idates recommended by the employment exchange or after publication in newspapers . It is the case of the applicant that the name of the respondent No.7 was forw arded by the local employment exchange and accordingly, on the basis of the reco mmendation of the Selection Committee, respondent No.7 has been recommended for appointment as Grade-IV post. According to the applicant, there is no irregularity or illegali ty in the aforesaid process inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to poin t out any irregularity in the entire process, except that the name of the petit ioner was not forwarded by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, the applicant s tates that interim order is liable to be modified. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa and anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty; (2011) 3 SCC 436 it has been clearly stated that normally i n any kind of recruitment, there must be a notice published in the appropriate m anner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto shou ld be considered fairly. It is the case of the petitioner also that even though he had registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, his name was not forwarded by the District Employment Exchange thereby denying the opportunity o f being considered for selection to the post. This contention of the petitioner needs to be considered inasmuch as the District Employment Exchange ought to hav e forwarded the eligible candidates for consideration for selection. However, al l these aspects can be considered at the time of final hearing of the writ petit ion. Evidently, in this case as per the existing regulation of Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010, the process for appointment o f the respondent No.7 had been undertaken, which was concluded by the recommend ation of respondent No.7 for appointment to Grade-IV. In view of the matter, the interim order may be modified to the extent that the recommendation of the Se lection Committee may be allowed to be acted upon for the purpose of appointment . However, any such appointment will be subject to the result of this writ petit ion. Accordingly, Misc. case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.