High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 652/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
Decision
Pursuant to an advertisement calling for application to fill up 7 (seven) posts of Statistical Assistants in the Social Welfare Department, Golaghat District, t he present three petitioners, amongst others, applied for selection and appointm ent to the said advertised posts. Though a select list was published, which emb odied the names of the present petitioners at Sl. Nos. 5, 6 and 7, the petitione rs herein were, for undisclosed reasons, not appointed, but the selected candida tes, whose names figures at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, were appointed as Statistica l Assistant. Aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to appoint the petiti oners to the vacant posts of Statistical Assistant, as mentioned hereinbefore, t he petitioners came to this Court with a writ petition, made under Article 226 o f the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions. The said writ peti tion gave rise to WP(C) No. 3429/2006. 2. While directing issuance of notice of motion, as far back as on 21.07.20 06, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order directing the r espondents concerned not to fill up the remaining three posts by excluding the p resent petitioners. In effect, thus, the interim order was a direction not to a ppoint anyone in the said remaining three vacant posts except the present petiti oners. 3. In course of time, the respondents came out with a plea that the petitio ners could not be appointed due to the Code of Conduct, which had come into forc e, because of the Assembly Elections, in the year 2006. The respondents did not , however, explain as to why the petitioners had not been appointed, though thei r names had appeared at Sl. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the select list. Taking this asp ect and the counter affidavit, which had been filed by the respondents, into acc ount, the Court finally disposed of the writ petition No. 3429/2006, by order, d ated 08.06.2011, which, being relevant, is reproduced below: (cid:28)The petitioners occupied the merit position at 5, 6 and 7 for appointment to th e post of Statistical Assistant in the SWD (Golaghat District). Their such sele ction was against 7 (seven) vacancies. When they were not appointed, they appro ached this Court filing the instant writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the PO-II working in the Directorate of Socia l Welfare, Assam, the stand taken is that out of 7 (seven) vacancies only 4(four ) could be filled up and the remaining 3 (three) could not be filled up inasmuc h as in the meantime the Code of Conduct because of Assembly Election, 2006 came into operation. Further stand in the affidavit is that if the Govt. decides to fill up the said posts, appropriate order would follow. It is not understood as to why appointments were made on piecemeal basis. If the selected candidates from serial No. 1 to 4 could be appointed, there is no eart hly reason as to why the selectees at serial No. 5, 6 and 7 could not be appoint ed. Be that as it may, since the Code of Conduct is now over, the respondents wi ll have to take a decision in the matter. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Commission er and Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Assam to pass an appropriate order in respect of the grievance of the petitioner in consultation with other departm ental authorities. The appropriate order be passed as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.08.2011. (cid:29) 4. From a bare reading of the observations made, and the directions given b y the Court, it becomes clear that the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Assam, was specifically directed by the Court to pass appropriate order, not lat er than 31.08.2011, on the grievances of the petitioners in consultation with ot her departmental authorities. 5. Before, however, the above directions were passed, on 08.06.2011, in WP( C) 3429/2006, disposing of the said writ petition, an advertisement was publishe d, on 17.01.2009, inviting applications to fill up various posts, including post s of Statistical Assistant, in the Social Welfare Department. This is the adver tisement, which has been put to challenge by the petitioners by making the prese nt writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a ppropriate direction. I have heard Mr. L. N. Dihingia, learned counsel, appearing for the peti 6. tioners. I have also heard Ms. B. D. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Social W elfare Department, who submits that she has received no instructions in the matt er. From the materials on record, what transpires is that the three posts, w 7. hich were covered by the directions of this Court, passed on 08.06.2011, in WP(C ) 3429/2006, are, admittedly, not covered by the advertisement, dated 17.01.2009 , which stands impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioners cannot, t herefore, express any grievance against the impugned advertisement, dated 17.01. 2009, when the posts, which they had not been selected for, have not been covere d by the impugned advertisement, dated 17.01.2009. 8. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that as far as this writ pe tition is concerned, it is not tenable and no relief, in this writ petition, can be granted to the writ petitioners. 9. Situated thus, this writ petition is dismissed making it, however, clear that as far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are covered by the d irections of this Court, passed on 08.06.2011, in WP(C) 3429/2006, and they (pet itioners) shall remain free to take recourse to such provisions of law, as may b e available to them, for the purpose of achieving the objective with which they had filed the writ petition, which had given rise to WP(C) 3429/2006. 10. nd disposed of. 11. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta No order as to costs.