High Court · 2012

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the very appo intment of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner was never appointed as Inspector. They have also gone to extent of questioning the Annexure-I appoi ntment order dated 07.02.2006. In the counter affidavit a replica of the said or der dated 07.02.2006 has been annexed containing the same names except that of t he petitioner. The letter number also differes. While the first two names appea ring in the order are against the post of Inspector, the remaining four are agai nst the post of Demonstrator. However, in the typed copy of Annexure-I dated 07. 02.2006 annexed to the writ petition, the name of the petitioner appears at seri al No. 7 as Inspector after Demonstrators and above when the two names of Ins pector appeared. The respondents have also annexed certain documents to deny the plea of the petitioner that he had joined the post by submitting joining report. As per the said documents, the petitioner was never physically present to join the pos t. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the p etitioner was cancelled only to accommodate one Smt. Sermi Terangpi inasmuch as the impugned letter itself refers to cancellation of the appointment of the pet itioner to fill up the posts in exigencies of service. Be it stated here that th e appointment of Smt. Sermi Terangpi is not under challenge. Mr. J. Chutia, learned SC, Karbi Anglong submits that there is manipulat ion of Annexure-I order dated 07.02.2006 inasmuch as the name of the petitioner did not appear in the said order, but the petitioner by manipulation incorporate d his name at serial No. 7 as Inspector in the said order. As regards the letter dated 27.07.2007 (Annexure-D) annexed to the affidavit in opposition requesting the appointment of said Ms. Sermi Terangpi by cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, he submits that such a course of action was adopted to show that th e name of the petitioner was there in the initial appointment order dated 07.02. 2006, although the fact of the matter is that his name was never in the said ord er. Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the respondents has also produced two files. In one of the files there is a reference of particular enquiry which reveals tha t appointments had been made by the Deputy Secretary, Handloom and Textiles, Kar bi Anglong all by himself. Referring to the petitioner’s order of appointment, i t has been stated in one of the communications that the said documents were not known to the dealing Assistant and that everything was done by the Deputy Secret ary in his own computer. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that irrespective of t he allegation and counter allegation referred to above, the fact of the matter i s that the petitioner and for that matter all the appointees were never appointe d pursuant to any advertisement and selection. According to him if the appointme nt of the petitioner is not sustainable, in that case all other appointments are also not sustainable in law. Mr. Chutia, learned SC, Karbi Anglong submits that in absence of any cha llenge to the appointments of other candidates, the petitioner cannot pray for a direction to KAAC to cancel such appointments. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and have also gone through the materials on record. I have also perused th e two files produced by Mr. Chutia, learned SC, KAAC. In the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he was approved for appointment as Inspector, but there is no whisper of any advertisement and selec tion which are required to be preceded in the matter of any public employment. M erely because some other candidates had been appointed by the KAAC authority, th e petitioner cannot pray for perpetuating the said illegality in the public empl oyment. The fact that the appointments have been made without any advertisement and selection has also been admitted by the respondents in their additional affi davit. The said affidavit has been filed in respect of appointment of said Ms. S ermi Terangpi. In the said affidavit it was stated that Ms. Terangpi was not app ointed pursuant to any selection. In view of the above, no direction can be issued to continuation of the service of the petitioner setting aside and quashing the communication dated 11. 07.2007 (Annexure-6). Since the very foundation of the petitioner entering into the service is illegal, this court exercising the power of writ jurisdiction, ca nnot issue any direction to perpetuate and/or continue in the said illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued for cancellati on of all the appointments including Ms. Sermi Terangpi. As noted above, the sai d candidates are not party respondents to this proceeding. Thus no adverse order can be passed against the said candidates. It is always open for the KAAC autho rity to take appropriate action in the matter. Writ petition is dismissed.