Judgment · High Court · 1987

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.Upadhya y, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel representing respondents No. 7 to 15 and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for respo ndents No. 16 to 23. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, an association of All Assam Hand loom and Textile Officers, has prayed for a direction to the respondents to prov ide its members the opportunity of participation in the matter of direct recruit ment to the post of Inspector of Handloom and Textile. The petitioner has also a ssailed, the Annexure-6 & 7 communications, by which the Govt. of Assam in the H andloom, Textile and Sericulture Department conveyed that only diploma holders i n Textile Technology / Handloom Technology would be eligible for direct recruitm ent. Referring to the earlier practice being following in the department, it is the c ase of the petitioner that the new norms laid down by the said two communication s is opposed to the earlier norms, in terms of which even the certificate holder s with 8(eight) years experience were eligible to participate in the selection p rocess for direct recruitment to the post of Inspector of Handloom and Textile. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to the Annexure-3 advertisement dated 13.2.1987 and the Annexure-4 communication dated 15.11.2006. By Annexure-3 advertisement, candidatures were invited, both from the diploma holders and cer tificate holders with 8 years experience for direct recruitment to the post of I nspector, Handloom and textile. By Annexure-4 communication dated 15.11.2006, th e authority in the BTC requested the Employment Officer of the Employment Exchan ges Kokrajhar, Gossaigaon and Udalguri to sponsor candidates for the post of Ins pector of Handloom and Textile. Laying down the qualification for the said post, it was stipulated that the candidates with 3 (three) years diploma in Textile T echnology / Handloom Technology or Certificate Holders in Textile / Handloom Tec hnology with 8 years experience would be eligible for direct recruitment. The State respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and so also the priva te respondents. However, the State filed an affidavit on 27.3.2007 in the form o f an application for modification of the interim order operating in this proceed ing. In the said affidavit, it has been contended that since there is no rule in the department, it has followed the model of State PWD by providing that the po st would be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. It has bee n stated that for direct recruitment, only diploma holders are eligible and for promotion the incumbents with 8 years experience and certificate in the particul ar trade will be eligible for promotion. As regards the past practice being foll owed in the department by way of inviting candidature, both from diploma holders and certificate holders with 8 years experience, it has been contended that the petitioners cannot harp upon the selection made in 1997. It has also been conte nded that the Annexure-4 communication dated 15.11.2006 made by the BTC authorit y to the Employment Exchanges has not been acted upon. However, Mr. S. Sarma, le arned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same has been acted upon and i n fact appointments have also been made. Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that because of this ongoing proceeding, the matter relating to recruitment to the post of Inspector of Handloom and Textiles have suffered a setback and that the said respondents s hall not have any objection if the certificate holders with the requisite experi ence are also participate in the direct recruitment process. Mr. N.K. Kalita, l earned counsel representing the other respondents submits that because of penden cy of this proceeding, the diploma holders have suffered a lot. The present stalemate in the matter of appointment to the post of Inspector of H andloom and Textiles is the creation of the State Government by nor framing the rules. The draft rule was prepared in 1995 but no finality has been given to it. The said draft rules provide for direct recruitment to the post of Inspector fr om both the sources i.e. the diploma holders and the certificate holders with 8 years experience. As stated in the writ petition, by Annexure-3 advertisement da ted 13.2.1987, along with the diploma holders, the certificate holders with 8 ye ars experience were also allowed to participate in the selection for direct recr uitment. Similar direct recruitment was made for which the Annexure-4 communicat ion was made to the Employment Exchanges requesting to sponsor candidates. What the petitioner has prayed for is the right of participation in the matter o f direct recruitment to the said post of Inspector. If they are entitled to get consideration for promotion to the said post as certificate holder with requisit e experience of 8 years, I see no reason as to why, subject to fulfillment of ot her requisites, they should not be allowed to participate in the process of sele ction for direct recruitment, more particularly, when such a practice was follow ed in the department. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of providing that along with the diploma holders, the certificate holders with requisite experience of 8 yea rs shall also be entitled to participate in the direct recruitment. It is submitted that in view of the pendency of this proceeding, some of the can didates from both the streams of diploma holders and certificate holders have be come over-aged. The respondents may consider condonation of upper age limit in r espect of those candidates. Let the process for direct recruitment be initiated and completed as expeditious ly as possible. Before parting with the case records, it is directed that it will also be approp riate for the respondents to finalise the draft rules as expeditiously as possib le to avoid any sort of confusion. There shall be no order as to costs.