KAMAL DEBNATH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

SRI BHASKAR DUTTA DAS S/O- SRI BHADRESWAR DUTTA DAS H/NO. 9 A.G. OFFICE ROAD P.O. GUWAHATI- 781028 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. Page No.# 21/134 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. N DHAR Advocate for : SR. GA ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Linked Case : WA/335/2023 ABHISHEK BORBORA R/O HOUSE NO. 26 PUB- SARANIA MAIN ROAD 5TH BYELANE RAJGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC EXCISE DEPTT. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. Page No.# 22/134 Linked Case : WA/31/2021 BHARGAV PHUKAN S/O SRI DIPAK KUMAR PHUKAN R/O HOUE NO. 9 D. TAROO PATH KRISHNAPUR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-781028 P.S. BASISTHA P.O. LAKHIMANDIR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. M P CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/159/2022 DIPAK KHANIKAR RESIDENT OF NATUN BAZAR Page No.# 23/134 PO RATANPUR PS JENGRAIMUKH DIST MAJULI WARD NO. 10 ASSAM 785105 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ------------ Advocate for : MS H AHMED Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Linked Case : WA/217/2021 HIMANGSHU CHOUDHURY S/O BIBHU BHUSAN CHOUDHURY R/O BELTOLA P.O.-BALADMARI P.S.-GOALPARA DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR Page No.# 24/134 GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S A HUSSAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/141/2020 PRASENJIT KR. GHOSH S/O- LATE SURESH KUMAR GHOSH R/O- H/NO. 40 APRO COLONY LANE ULUBARI GUWAHATI P.S. PALTANBAZAR DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. 2:THE SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM Page No.# 25/134 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR S S DEY Advocate for : SC TRANSPORT appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Linked Case : WA/131/2020 DEBAJIT BORA AND ANR. S/O- LATE JITENDRA MOHAN BORA R/O- VILL.- GANDHINAGER L.K. ROAD P.S. AND DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782002. 2: RAJARSHI SEN DEKA S/O- NILAMANI SEN DEKA R/O- LACHIT NAGAR KANAKLATA PATH GUWAHATI- 781007. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Page No.# 26/134 Linked Case : WA/185/2020 UTPAL BHUYAN S/O- LATE JOGEN BHUYAN R/O- MODHUPUR VILLAGE P.O. KURUKANI P.S. KAKOTIBARI DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785691 ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR A D CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/70/2023 NISHA MONI DEKA WIFE OF BIKASH KUMAR PINCHA RESIDENT OF SRCB ROAD FANCY BAZAR DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. Page No.# 27/134 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. B REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P J SAIKIA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. B Linked Case : WA/155/2020 BADRUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE ABDUS SHAKUR CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL. AND P.O. MOHAKAL P.S. BADARPUR DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. S K TALUKDAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Page No.# 28/134 Linked Case : WA/185/2021 RHITURAJ NEOG S/O- SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD NEOG R/O- HN-1 BYE LANE NO. 2 CHANDAN NAGAR SURVEY BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781006 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. N J KHATANIAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. Page No.# 29/134 Linked Case : WA/22/2023 VIKASH KUMAR PINCHA S/O- SHIKHAR CHAND PINCHA R/O- SHREE ARIHANT GARMENTS B.G. MARKET 2ND FLOOR SRCB ROAD FANCY BAZAR DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. H REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE(TAXATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY FINANCE(TAXATION) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P J SAIKIA Advocate for : MR. B GOGOI appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. H Linked Case : WA/75/2020 SMTI PALLABI SARMA CHAUDHURY W/O SRI SURAJIT CHAUDHURY R/O HOUSE NO. 26 KRISHNA NAGAR CHATRIBARI P.S. PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI 01 DIST. KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 30/134 ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT .OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM RERSONNEL (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 3:THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT.. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ------------ Advocate for : MR A C BORBORA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Linked Case : WA/111/2020 KAVITA DAS R/O- SRIMANTAPUR BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781032 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. Page No.# 31/134 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. Linked Case : WA/213/2020 MD. MUSTAFA AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O- ISHAQUE ALI BARBHUIYA R/O- H/NO. 5 LNB ROAD HATIGAON P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON DIST.- KAMRUP(M) PIN- 788038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEDPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. M H LASKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Page No.# 32/134 Linked Case : WA/110/2020 DHRUBOJYOTI CHAKRABORTY S/O- LATE SUDHANGSHU SEKHAR CHAKRABORTY SETTLEMENT ROAD KARIMGANJ TOWN P.O. KARIMGANJ- 788710 DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022 ASSAM. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI DISTRICT P.O. HAILAKANDI- 788151 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. N DHAR Advocate for : SR GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Page No.# 33/134 Linked Case : WA/154/2020 JYOTIRMOY ADHIKARY R/O- WARD NO. 1 KANAKLATA ROAD P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM LABOUR WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/180/2020 BARNALI DEVI W/O- DIPJYOTI UZIR R/O- H/NO. 6 HATIGAON P.S. HATIGAON PIN- 781038 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. Page No.# 34/134 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT 1ST FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GOVT. OF ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES NALBARI UNIT ZONE B NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335. ------------ Advocate for : MR. A CHAMUAH Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. Linked Case : WA/277/2021 JOYDEV MAHANTA S/O LATE NILMONI MAHANTA R/O BAPUJI NAGAR P.O.-BALADMARI P.S.-GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783121 Page No.# 35/134 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S A HUSSAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/96/2022 MANAS PRATIM HALOI AEC ROAD ANGAD NAGAR PATH HOUSE NO. 41 P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) WARD NO. 02 PIN- 781014. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT. Page No.# 36/134 1ST FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT. 2ND FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GOVT. OF ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES NAGAON ZONE GOVT. OF ASSAM COURT CAMPUS NAGAON- 782001. ------------ Advocate for : MR A JAIN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Linked Case : WA/125/2020 AMRIT JYOTI SHARMA S/O- LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA SHARMA NEAR AMOLAPATTY GOLAGHAT TOWN P.O. AND DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR Page No.# 37/134 GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. N DHAR Advocate for : SR. GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS Linked Case : WA/126/2020 HARSHAJYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS. S/O- ANIL CHANDRA BORA R/O- BISHNURAVA ROAD P.S. TEZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM. 2: JAYANTA KUMAR NATH S/O- NAGEN CHANDRA NATH R/O- VILL.- KABAICHUBA BORDOLGURI P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST.- DARRANG ASSAM. 3: HEMANTA SAIKIA S/O- BHOGESWAR SAIKIA VILL.- LAKHTAKIA P.S. DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. Page No.# 38/134 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. ------------ Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/137/2020 NIPAN KR PATHAK S/O SRI SUSENDRA KUMAR PATHAK PERMANENT R/O VILL. MAIRAMARA P.O. AND P.S HOWLY DIS. BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP .BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT. 1ST FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT. 1ST FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Page No.# 39/134 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPTT. 2ND FLOOR F BLOCK JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 5:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GOVT. OF ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KOKRAJHAR ------------ Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : SC APSC appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. Linked Case : WA/174/2020 KAUSHIK KALITA S/O- SANATAN CHANDRA KALITA R/O- HATIGAON LAKHIMINAGAR P.O. AND P.S. HATIGAON DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. Page No.# 40/134 3:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR. A CHAMUAH Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Linked Case : WA/58/2021 MOON MAZOOMDER W/O- PANKAJ CHAKRABORTY R/O- H/NO. A 202 AAKRUTI AMITY SRI ANANTHA NAGAR LAYOUT PHASE 2 HUSKER GATE HOSUR MAIN ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 2 BANGALORE ELECTRONICS CITY KARNATAKA- 560100. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. ------------ Advocate for : MR F KHAN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. Page No.# 41/134 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI Case No. WA 75/2020 WA 14/2022 Advocate for the Appellants Mr. A.C. Borbora, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mrs. R. Borbora Mr. A. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., assisted by Ms. Barnali Choudhury & Ms. Imsenkala Mr. A.K. Bhuyan & Ms. N. Choudhury. Mr. S.A. Hussain Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury Mr. A.B. Dey & Mr. S. Sutradhar Mr. Firuz Khan Mr. A. Chamuah WA 137/2020 WA 26/2021, WA 31/2021 Mr. M.P. Choudhury WA 47/2021 WA 147/2020 WA 159/2022 WA 174/2020, WA WA 216/2021, WA 217/2021, WA 277/2021, WA 279/2021, WA 93/2022, WA 95/2022 WA 96/2022, WA 333/2021, WA 219/2020, WA 206/2020, WA 50/2021, WA 58/2021, WA WA 101/2020, WA 103/2020, WA 126/2020, WA 131/2020, WA 154/2020, WA 335/2023, WA 98/2022, WA 196/2020 Mr. D.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. B. Mr. D. Das, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. S. Das & Ms. S. Sharma Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. J. Patowary Prasad Mr. M.H. Laskar Mr. A.B.T. Haque Mr. N. Dhar & Ms. S. Dasgupta WA 206/2020, WA WA 155/2020, WA WA 110/2020, WA 118/2020, WA 119/2020, WA Page No.# 42/134 WA 163/2020 WA 141/2020 WA 321/2021 WA 185/2020 WA 128/2020 Mr. M.S. Hussain Mr. S. Biswakarma Mr. P.K. Munir Mr. P. Dutta Mr. B.D. Das, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma None appears WA 59/2023, WA 98/2020, WA 185/2021, WA 22/2023, WA 70/2023 Mr. T.J. Mahanta and Mr. P.P. Dutta, SC, APSC in WA 110/2020, WA 118/2020, WA 128/2020, WA 137/2020. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Ankit Roy, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Advocates and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Govt. Advocate. Date of hearing

01.05.2025, 02.05.2025, 05.05.2025, 06.05.2025, 13.05.2025, 14.05.2025, 15.05.2025, 16.05.2025, 19.05.2025, 20.05.2025, 21.05.2025, 22.05.2025, 23.05.2025, 26.05.2025, 27.05.2025, 28.05.2025, 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025, 02.06.2025, 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 05.06.2025, 06.06.2025, 12.06.2025, 13.06.2025, 16.06.2025, 17.06.2025 20.06.2025. Date of judgment JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (K.R. Surana, J) 1) By these set of 40 (forty) intra-court appeals, the appellants have assailed the common judgment and order dated 18.03.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of 49 writ petitions [W.P.(C) Nos. 4198/2019 - Geetali Doley v. State of Assam & Ors., and 48 connected writ petitions], by which all the said writ petitions were dismissed. 2) It may be mentioned that a total of 49 (forty nine) writ appeals were filed. However, during the pendency of these appeals, the appellant in W.A. 127/2020 had expired. Moreover, it may also be mentioned that by a Page No.# 43/134 separate order, W.A. No. 27/2024 has been segregated, as the appellant therein, who is one of the accused in Special Case No. 5/2021, (arising out of Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017), has been convicted. 3) Out of the remaining 47 writ appeals, it has been noted that 8 (eight) appellants had filed two writ petitions each, which were dismissed by the said common judgment under appeal. Therefore, these eight appellants, namely, Kavita Das, Kaushik Kalita, Harshajyoti Bora, Jayanta Kumar Nath, Hemanta Saikia, Jatindra Prasad Baruah, Dilip Kalita and Sabbira Imran have filed two separate writ appeals against dismissal of one their writ petitions, but against their second set of writ petitions, they have filed a common appeal, being WA 333/2021.Accordingly, 47 appeals have heard together. 4) The back-ground on which the writ petitions were filed by the appellants was that they were appointed in service pursuant to their selection through Combined Competitive Examination (Mains), 2013 and 2014, which was conducted by the APSC. On the basis of First Information Report lodged by one complainant, alleging that the accused person named therein had contacted the complainant and told her to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakh in consideration of her recruitment to a particular post in exercise which was being carried out by APSC. Accordingly, Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 was registered. In a trap laid, the FIR named accused was apprehended while receiving cash from the complainant. As per the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets filed in that case, it appears that during investigation that was carried out, the then Chairman of APSC along with several other accused had colluded with several candidates including the writ petitioners and with each other and indulged printing fake answer-scripts, which were given to the writ petitioners to re-write answer-scripts again after the examination and replaced them with the original Page No.# 44/134 answer-scripts lying in the APSC strong-room; marks were found to be manipulated by using correction fluids and erasures and over-writing; the re- written answer-scripts either did not contain the signature of the invigilators or contained fake signatures, which did not match with the signatures of the concerned invigilators. All these were done for getting the writ petitioners selected in the CCE-2013 and CCE-2014 batch of APSC conducted examination. In course of time, the appellants were discharged from service and they have assailed their respective discharge by filing writ petitions, which were dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 18.03.2020. Resultantly, these appeals. 5) It may be stated that against all the writ petitioners, pursuant to investigation carried out in connection with Dibrugarh PS Case No. 936/2016, charge-sheets/ supplementary charge-sheets have been filed. Accordingly, the status of the writ petitioners in the present appeal, their status as accused in the said case and the charge-sheets where their names appear are as follows:- ASSAM CIVIL SERVICE (JUNIOR GRADE) W.P.(C) Nos. WA No. Sl. No. NAME OF THE PETITIONERS

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 127/2020 Bhaskar Chandra Dev Sharma 119/2020 Bhaskar Dutta Das 125/2020 Amrit Jyoti Sharma 217/2021 Himangshu Chowdhury 131/2020 Debojit Bora 155/2020 Badrul Islam Choudhury 131/2020 Rajarshi Sen Deka ACCUS ED No. A-12 A-11 A-13 A-25 A-20 A-32 A-35 SUPPLE- MENTARY CHARGE/S HEET I I I II II II II

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 Ganesh Chandra Das Deepsikha Phukan 103/2020 Dwithun Borgayary 128/2020 Kunal Das 101/2020 Rumi Saikia 118/2020 Susovan Das 110/2020 Dhrubojyoti Chakraborty 47/2021 Monika Teronpi 216/2021 Anirudhya Roy 277/2021 Joydev Mahanta 159/2020 Manzoor Elahi Laskar 163/2020 Barnali Das 206/2020 Saibur Rahman Barbhuiya 58/2021 Moon Mazoomder 213/2020 Mustafa Ahmed Barbhuiya 219/2021 Leena Krishna Kakati 159/2020 Dipak Khanikar 185/2020 Utpal Bhuyan Hrituraj Gogoi Nisha Moni Deka Kamal Debnath Geetali Doley Pallabi Sarma Choudhury Srabanti Sengupta Page No.# 45/134 A-17 A-27 A-36 A-59 A-55 A-58 A-52 A-48 A-24 A-45 A-56 A-51 A-57 A-47 A-65 A-50 A-49 A-14 A-22 A-60 A-43 A-37 A-30 A-34 II II II VI VI VI VI VI II IV VI VI VI VI VI VI VI II II VI IV II II II ASSAM POLICE SERVICE (JUNIOR GRADE) Sl. No. W.P.(C)No. WA No. NAME OF THE PETITIONERS 32 33 34 35 126/2020 Harshajyoti Bora 126/2020 Jayanta Kr. Nath 126/2020 Hemanta Saikia 196/2020 Sabbira Imran ACCUS ED No. A-21 A-16 A-15 A-18 SUPPLE- MENTARY CHARGE/ SHEET II II II II 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Sl. No 43 44 45 46 47 48 Sl. No Page No.# 46/134 147/2020 Jatindra Pd. Baruah A-26 II 333/2021 Kaushik Kalita 333/2021 Kavita Das A-42 IV A-66 VI 333/2021 Dilip Kumar Kalita A-29 II Pallavi Sharma Bhargav Phukan Gulshan Daolagapu A-53 A-62 A-61 VI VI VI ASSAM TAXATION SERVICE W.P.(C)No. WA No. NAME OF THE PETITIONER 321/2021 Sunayana Aidew 96/2022 Manas Protim Haloi 180/2020 Barnali Devi 139/2020 Nipan Kr. Pathak Vikas Kr. Pincha Rhituraj Neog ASSAM TRANSPORT SERVICE W.P.(C)No. WA No. NAME OF THE PETITIONER 49 50 141/2020 Prasenjit Kr. Ghosh Suranjita Hazarika ASSAM LABOUR SERVICE W.P.(C)No. WA No. Sl. No NAME OF THE PETITIONER 51 52 154/2020 Jyotirmoy Adhikari 279/2021 Raju Saha ACCUS ED No. A-33 A-39 A-44 A-63 A-64 A-38 SUPPLE- MENTARY CHARGE/ SHEET II III III VI VI III ACCUS ED No. A-46 A-54 SUPPLE- MENTARY CHARGE/ SHEET V VI ACCUS ED No. A-31 A-19 SUPPLE- MENTARY CHARGE/ SHEET II II Page No.# 47/134 Case of the appellants, in brief: 6) The appellants are candidates of two batches of who had appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination (Mains), 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCE-2013’ for brevity), and CCE-2014, which was conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APSC’ for brevity). The appellants, who had cleared the CCE-2013, were appointed in the year 2015. The other batch of appellants who had cleared CCE-2014, were appointed in 2016. 7) A total of 421 nos. of candidates who had cleared the said two examinations were offered appointments on probation including the appellants herein. The appellants, purportedly being referred to by the State respondents as probationers, are amongst 60 such candidates who were discharged from service. Those discharge orders in respect of 52 writ petitioners were challenged by filing 49 writ petitions. Accordingly, on dismissal of the said writ petitions, the present batch of intra-court appeals have been filed. Summary of the common submissions of the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the appellants: 8) Upon clearing the CCE-2013 and CCE-2014 conducted by the APSC, out the 52 writ petitioners, vide orders passed on different dates, 30 appellants were appointed in the Assam Civil Service (Junior Grade) (ACS-JG for brevity), whose service are governed under the Assam Civil Service Rules, 1998. Similarly, 11 appellants were appointed in the Assam Police Service (Junior Grade) (APS-JG for brevity) and their services are governed by the Assam Police Service Rules, 1966; 6 (six) appellants were appointed in the Assam Taxation Service (ATxS for brevity) and their service are governed by the Assam Taxation Page No.# 48/134 Service Rules, 1995; 2 (two) appellants were appointed in the Assam Transport Service (ATrS for brevity) and their services are governed by the Assam Transport Service Rules, 2003; 2 (two) appellants in were appointed in Assam Labour Service (ALS for brevity) and their services are governed by the Assam Labour Service Rules, 1970. 9) It has been submitted that initially, the appellants were on probation and on completion of their respective statutory 2 (two) year probation period, the appellants must be deemed to be a regular member of their respective service. In this regard, Mr. D.K. Mishra, the learned senior counsel had submitted that if the State Government refuses to treat the appellants as regular members of their respective service, there would be no record as to in what capacity, the appellants had been working after their probation period is over. 10) Thereafter, on 27.10.2016, a First Information Report (FIR for sort) was lodged by a particular complainant before the Dibrugarh P.S., alleging therein that the FIR named person named had contacted her and told her to pay Rs.10.00 lakh to him to recruit her in the post of Dental Surgeon conducted by the APSC. The said FIR was registered as Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016. Subsequently, during the investigation of the said case, it was unearthed 60 candidates had allegedly been selected in the post of ACS, APS, ATxS, ATrS, and ALS through illegal means in lieu of money and not on merit. Accordingly, by separate orders, issued on different dates, those 60 candidates including the appellants herein were discharged from their respective services without giving them any opportunity of being heard. The said termination orders have been assailed by filing of 52 writ petitions. 11) It has been submitted that the Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. Page No.# 49/134 936/2016, is being tried as Spl. Case No. 2/2017, before the learned Court of Special Judge, Assam. Moreover, Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017, is being tried has Special Case No. 5/2021, which is pending for adjudication before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam. 12) It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that their service are governed by 5 (five) different service rules. Therefore, all the cases ought not to have been heard and decided by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment and order. 13) It has been submitted that though the State has projected that all appellants were probationers, but the said stand of the State, treating the appellants as probationers has no legs to stand because in most of the cases the principle of “deemed confirmation” would come into play. It was submitted that in none of the cases, the State and its authorities have arrived at a considered conclusion that the appellants are not suitable for confirmation in service, which is also a requirement of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it has been submitted that the same is also a requirement under the relevant service rules applicable to the respective appellants. 14) It has been submitted that in most of these appeals, the concerned appellants were given regular posting, which can only be done after the probation period is completed. In this regard, referring to the documents appended to the memorandum of appeals, it has been submitted that the appellants, while handing over their charge, did so as a probationer and/or Officer of Junior Grade. However, when the appellants had taken over charge, they did so as a regular member of service. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the State Government, having given regular posting to the majority of the appellants, the stand of the State that the appellants are the still probationers is Page No.# 50/134 an after-thought and not sustainable. 15) It has been further submitted that when the appellants were under probation, the appellants were only entitled to one increment only. Under their respective service rules, the appellants would have become entitled to second increment only after successfully completing the period of probation. Moreover, in respect of the some of the appellants who were in APS, in view of exigency in service, the training period for the appellants who were APS was curtailed/ reduced from two years to one year four months. Accordingly, it has been submitted that as the appellants are deemed to have been confirmed in regular service, they have become entitled to protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, it was submitted that it was imperative for the State to have taken recourse to departmental proceedings against the appellants. In this regard, it has also been submitted that the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India has been violated. 16) In respect of some of the appellants, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer had alleged in the charge-sheet submitted before the learned Special Court that the appellants had paid bribe either to the then Chairman of the APSC or to the middlemen named in the charge-sheet. However, there is a noticeable deviation of the amount of bribe paid, as stated in the charge-sheet, compared to the disclosure made to the affidavit in opposition filed in the concerned writ petition. 17) In the aforesaid context, it has been submitted that charge- sheet contained allegation that in their respective statement before the Investigating Officer, 23 (twenty-three) writ petitioners (22 appellants herein) had stated about paying bribe. In this regard, the learned Single Judge had held that the money paid in lieu of appointment ranged from Rs.25.00 lakh to Page No.# 51/134 Rs.40.00 lakh. However, the State respondents have not annexed any such statement to their affidavit-in-opposition filed in connection with some of the writ petitions. It has been specifically submitted that statement allegedly made by the concerned appellants before the police admitting their complicity in paying bribe do not form part of the documents which accompanied the charge- sheet no. 3/2017, submitted in Dibrugarh PS Case No. 936/2016, or in any of the Supplementary Charge-Sheet nos. I to XIV filed therein from time to time. 18) In the said context, it has been submitted that most the appellants have been charged of committing offence punishable under Sections 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as PC Act) and Sections 109, 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC). Accordingly, it has been submitted that though the appellants have been discharged from service allegedly for pre- service misconduct of paying bribe for their entry into service, none of the appellants are facing charge of committing offence under Section 8 of the PC Act for giving bribe. 19) It has also been submitted that in law there is no distinction regarding pre-recruitment and post recruitment misconduct. Accordingly, it has been submitted that in the eyes of law, the probationers as well as regular employees are required to be equally treated. Thus, it was submitted that if the State is charging the appellants for committing any offence including misconduct, it is imperative that the State Government, as an ideal employer, should ensure that none of the appellants ought to have been dismissed, discharged or removed except after an inquiry, informing the appellants of the charges against them and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, which is the requirement of Article 311(2) of Page No.# 52/134 the Constitution of India and there could be no short-cut to the said procedure. 20) It has been submitted that in paragraph nos. 64 and 77 of the additional-affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4, the carrying out of “preliminary enquiry” including the investigation carried out by the police has been referred to. However, without disclosing which authority had conducted the “preliminary enquiry”. In this regard, it has been submitted that the learned Single Judge, in paragraph-45 of the impugned judgment has mentioned that the office files produced before the Court chronologically recorded the events taking place following information received from the Dibrugarh police as regards the arrest made in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016. The contents of paragraph-45 of the impugned judgment is extracted below: “45. The office files, as indicated above, chronologically records the events taking place, following information received from the Dibrugarh Police as regards arrest of the petitioners in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No.936/2016. From the decision calling for detailed reports from the Dibrugarh Police for taking further action, to receiving such reports in connection with the arrest of the petitioners, to the decisions to withdraw the services of the petitioners pending action to be taken by the Personnel (A) Department, Government of Assam, to obtaining the views of the Judicial Department before taking final decision and to obtaining the approval accorded by the Chief Minister of Assam, together with the views of the Advocate General, Assam, before the petitioners were discharged from service by orders of the Governor of Assam, the same finds recorded in the respective office files.” 21) It has been also submitted that 60 (sixty) officers had allegedly secured service through APSC by paying bribe. However, in course of police investigation, three of them had become approvers. On such consideration, the appropriate Government, in its wisdom, did not terminate their service and rather, departmental proceedings were drawn up against them. Thus, on behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the appellants had suffered discrimination by the State. Page No.# 53/134 22) It has further been submitted that in the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the State respondents have taken a specific stand that the entire process of examination was vitiated with a lot of anomalies in the conduct of examination, which included (a) manipulation of marks by interpolation, (b) re-writing/ correction of answer scripts, (c) substitution of answer scripts in fake answer scripts by printing such fake answer scripts in private printing presses, etc. However, in light of police investigation, instead of scraping the entire examination process, the Government arrived at a conclusion that the appellants were tainted candidates whose entry in service was by paying bribe. Resultantly, the other candidates allowed to continue in service, by treating them as non-tainted candidates and were retained in service. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the Government has segregated the candidates clearing the CCE-2013 and CCE- 2014 conducted by the APSC under three categories, viz., (i) tainted and discharged without drawing a departmental proceeding; (ii) tainted but not discharged, and against whom departmental/ disciplinary proceeding has been initiated and; (iii) non-tainted. 23) It has further been submitted that moreover, the FIR named accused in Dibrugarh PS Case no. 936/2016, who had approached the complainant and asked for money in lieu of job through APSC, and thus, a prime accused, was reinstated in service. 24) It has further been submitted that the fundamental error which vitiated the Government action is that a police report was accepted by the Governor of Assam as a cogent and reliable material to discharge the appellants from service without granting any opportunity to any of the appellants of being heard. Moreover, the learned Single Judge had also accepted the police report Page No.# 54/134 and heavily relied on the statement allegedly made by 22 appellants to justify the discharge of all the appellants from service and for dismissing the writ petition, which had vitiated the impugned judgment. 25) It has been submitted that vide notification dated 15.09.2017, issued in the name of the Governor of Assam, by which the service of the APS- JG Officers whose names appeared therein were regularized and given regular posting, is a proof that the probation period of those APS-JG were completed. However, the State respondents, by filing an affidavit- in-opposition, produced copy of two notifications dated 30.12.2017, 20.01.2018 by which the probation period of the APS-JG and those in other allied service were purportedly extended, thereby making an attempt to over-ride the notification dated

15.09.2017, which was ex facie illegal. It has been submitted that the copy of each such notification dated 30.12.2017 and 20.01.2018 are shown to be sent to 17 (seventeen) recipients other than the concerned appellants. However, neither any appellants nor any other named authorities to whom the said notification were marked, had been served with a copy of the said two notifications. It was also submitted that some of the appellants had sent RTI queries to the authorities to whom the said notification were purportedly sent, but those authorities, vide their respective RTI reply, stated that they had not received the copy of the said notifications, which includes, amongst others,(a) the Assam Government Press, which publishes the Assam Gazette, and (b) the Head of the Departments under whom the appellants were serving. It has been also submitted that the State has not produced a copy of the Gazette where the said two notifications were published. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the said two notifications were a post-dated manufactured document only to make-out a case against the appellants and to prejudice the learned Single Page No.# 55/134 Judge, whereas no such notification had actually been issued. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the action of the State in creating a fake and manufactured document is quite questionable, which is nothing but malice in law. 26) It has further been submitted that in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the State respondent nos.2 and 3 first in point of time, the stand of the State was that of denial, with no reference to culpability of any of the appellants. No statement was made regarding existence of any overwhelming public interest. However, in the garb of leave granted by the learned Single Judge to file documents, the State respondents, without taking prior leave of the Court, filed another affidavit-in-opposition, thereby making a tectonic shift in the stand of the State respondents. By the second affidavit-in-opposition, the State had projected culpability against all the appellants, and accusation has been made against the appellant of paying bribe to secure their entry into service. It has been submitted that moreover, the element of overwhelming interest was also introduced in the subsequent affidavit-in-opposition only to prejudice the Court against the appellants. 27) It has also been submitted that at the fag-end of the hearing before the learned Single Judge, certain files relating to the appellants containing report of police investigation were placed before the learned Single Judge in a sealed cover, without providing any copies thereof to any of the appellants. However, the learned Single Judge, having perused the same, relied on it and dismissed all the writ petitions. Thus, it was submitted that the appellants have been denied an opportunity of being heard on the materials which was placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge and accordingly, a sort of ex parte decision was passed by the learned Single Judge against the appellants without affording any opportunity to the appellants of Page No.# 56/134 being heard on those adverse materials. 28) The respective learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the appellants, in support of their submissions, have cited the following cases:-

1. Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, 2. Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 644, 3. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, 4. Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, 5. Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369, 6. State Bank of India v. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607, 7. Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, (2015) 15 SCC 151, 8. Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., (2000) 5 SCC 152, 9. Union of India v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi, (2010) 8 SCC 220, 10. Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose Institute National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60, 11. Rajendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73, 12. Manager, Govt. Branch Press v. D.B. Beliappa, (1979) 1 SCC 477, 13. Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 459, (Diary 30 Jan) 14. State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 15 15. K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 16. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 78 17. State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust, (2007) 3 SCC 587 18. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 19. State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal, (2023) 6 SCC 1 20. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. V. Girja Shankar Pant, (2001) 1 SCC 182 21. Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 22. Cdr. Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1570 23. Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, (2023) 13 SCC 401 24. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 179 25. State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex- Constable, (1992) 4 SCC 54 26. Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 449 27. State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, (1970) 2 SCC 871 28. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. V. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593 Page No.# 57/134

29. V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, (2000) 3 SCC 239 30. Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 581 31. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat v. Jayshree Chamanlal Budhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59 32. Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of U.P, (2013) 16 SCC 771 33. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala, (2020) 12 SCC 34. State of W.B. v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719 35. Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 36. Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165 37. Malti Dadaji Mahajan v. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Wardha, 1975 SCC OnLine Bom 72 38. Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway, AIR (1964) SC 600 39. Amar Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69 40. Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, (2018) 10 SCC 707 41. Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 42. Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1 43. DTC v. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 44. Sukhjinder Singh v. Director State Transport, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 1332 45. S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 46. G.S. Ramaswamy v. I.G. Police, (1964) 6 SCR 279 47. Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P., (1996) 1 SCC 560 48. Wasim Beg v. State of U.P., (1998) 3 SCC 321 49. Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena, (2019) 17 SCC 157 50. Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya, (2021) 13 SCC 151 51. Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54 52. Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631 53. Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2005) 11 SCC 525 54. X v. High Court of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 187 55. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, (1979) 2 SCC 491 56. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545 57. Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 159 58. Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4002 59. Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba, (1969) 3 SCC 603 60. M.P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain, (1995) 1 SCC 638 61. Registrar, High Court of Gujarat v. C.G. Sharma, (2005) 1 SCC 132 62. Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 Page No.# 58/134

63. P. Singaravelan v. Collector, Tiruppur, (2020) 3 SCC 133 64. State of Tripura v. Krishna Kanta Debbarma, 2006 SCC OnLine Gau 503 65. Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of J&K, (2010) 12 SCC 783 66. Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 155 67. State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 66 68. Pratap Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1979) 4 SCC 263 69. Municipal Corpn., Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra, (1991) 3 SCC 325 70. Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648 71. Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5 SCC 663 72. Biswa Ranjan Sahoo v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda, (1996) 5 SCC 365 73. Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 742 74. Amarbir Singh I – MANU/PH/1791/2013 75. Amarbir Singh II – MANU/PH/1791/2013 76. Virendra Kumar Tailor vs. State of Rajasthan- MANU/ RH/0476/2015 77. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519 78. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 79. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2022) 13 SCC 1 80. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 81. State of Mizoram v. Darkunga, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 2048 82. PRP Exports v. State of T.N., (2014) 13 SCC 692 83. Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 7 SCC 247 84. S. Ramachandra Rao v. S. Nagabhushana Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1460 85. State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 48 86. State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 59 87. D.B. Raju v. H.J. Kantharaj, (1990) 4 SCC 178 88. Om Parkash Maurya v. U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories Federation, 1986 Supp SCC 95 89. High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161 90. BHEL v. Vijay Kumar D., (2022) 15 SCC 792 91. Bipromasz Bipron Trading Sa v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 384 92. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 93. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 94. Swati Priyadarshini v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2024 INSC 620 95. Lovely Singha v. State of Assam, 2020 SCC OnLine Gau 4958 96. Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21 97. Benny T.D. v. Registrar of Coop. Societies, (1998) 5 SCC 269 98. Khatri (IV) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 2 SCC 493 99. Union of India v. Sanjeev Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4902 Page No.# 59/134 Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the State: 29) It has been submitted that consequent upon registration of Dibrugarh PS Case No. 936/2016, the concerned Investigating Officer and subsequent Special Investigation Team (SIT for short) had carried out thorough investigation. During investigation, it came out that there was certain middleman who along with the then Chairman of the APSC had created an illegal network to recruit candidates who had paid them bribe and thus, a few middlemen, the then Chairman of the APSC, some other officers and staff of APSC, and the candidates, in conspiracy with each other, took money from the candidates in lieu of giving them government jobs. In course of investigation, all the appellants and many others were arrested on different dates. The I.O. had examined the arrested accused persons and several other witnesses and seized a lot of documents and articles including manufactured and/ or altered answers script and many documents, electronic records seized answer scripts, seized tabulation sheets containing use of eraser, overwriting and interpolation of marks, etc. for forensic examination and based on the evidence so collected, the I.O. obtained sanction for prosecution of several accused persons and submitted charge-sheet no. 3/2017 and supplementary charge-sheet nos. 1 to 14 on different dates. Three beneficiaries of such fraudulent entry in service have been made approver in the case. In course of time, except for the then Chairman of the APSC, several arrested accused persons have been granted bail. Moreover, it has been submitted that the duplicate answers script were printed in the printing press of the brother of the then Chairman of the APSC, who is still absconding. It has been submitted that in course of the time, on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the I.O., charges were framed against the accused person under various provisions of the PC Act and the IPC and the prayer for Page No.# 60/134 discharging two accused persons were accepted and they were discharged and the prayer for discharge of other accused persons were rejected. 30) Accordingly, it has been submitted that on the basis of enquiry made by the Police, there was segregation of the accused persons under three categories, viz., those appellants, who were found tainted of entry into service by illegal means were summarily discharged from service; in respect of some of the accused, they had given the consent of becoming approvers, which was accepted by the learned trial court and therefore, they were kept under suspension and departmental enquiry were initiated against them; and those candidates who were appointed into various services in the APSC, 2015 and 2016 batch, against whom no proof could be collected to show their tainted entry into service, were considered non-tainted and they were allowed to continue in service. 31) Countering the general submissions on behalf of the appellants, it was submitted that the first proposition of law by which he was countering those submissions is that if the applicable service rules provide for extension of probation, none of the appellants can claim “deemed confirmation” in service, unless a specific order of confirmation is passed by the competent authority. In the said context, it has been submitted that the “deeming” fiction in respect of a probationer is only towards “extension of probation” and not “deemed confirmation in service”. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the State has referred to the provisions of Rule 22 of the Assam Civil Services Rules, 1998, Rule 15 and 17 of Assam Police Service Rules, 1966, Rule 21 of the Assam Taxation Service Rules, 1995, Rule 21 of the Assam Transport Service Rules, 2003, Rule 12, 13 and 14 of the Assam Labour Service Rules, 1970. 32) It has been submitted that the investigation carried out in Page No.# 61/134 Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 revealed that the then Chairman of APSC had colluded with various touts and other officials and printed fake and duplicate answer scripts, which were given to the appellants for re-writing the examination papers, which were subsequently replaced with the original answer scripts by the then Chairman of APSC in connivance with other co-accused and resultantly, the appellants got selected in lieu of money and not on merit in the APSC conducted CCE-2013 and CCE-2014. It has also been submitted that in course of investigation, the seized answer scripts were sent for forensic examination and as per expert opinion, several answer scripts contained the handwriting of the then Chairman of the APSC. It was also found that the illegally replaced answer scripts either did not contain the signature of the Invigilator and in cases where the signature of Invigilator appeared, the signatures were fake. 33) Accordingly, it has been submitted that in this batch of cases, the appellants were selected fraudulently with corrupt selection process of the APSC. Thus, it has been submitted that the illegal activities of the appellants relate to their indulging and/or participating in a colossal fraud during selection process relating to prior to entry into service, but none of the appellants are accused of commission of any corrupt practice or misconduct in course of discharge of service. It has been submitted that had the examination and selection process been carried out fairly, there was every likelihood that the appellants would not have got entry into service in the first place and accordingly, the appellants do not have any right to continue in the respective public offices, which they have reached by a fraudulent selection process. It has also been submitted that the selection and appointment of the appellants being a part of colossal fraud, their entry into service is ex facie void ab initio, thereby Page No.# 62/134 disentitling the appellants to continue to serve in public offices. Accordingly, the discharge of the appellants is invalid, illegal and is also in larger public interest. 34) It has been submitted that in CCE-2013 (Preliminary), 42553 candidates had appeared, out of which 2284 candidates (5.36%) had qualified for CCE (Mains) Examination, and out of them, only 497 candidates (1.1% of total candidates) were called for interview and a total of 241 candidates (0.56% of total candidates) were selected and recommended for appointment. Similarly, in CCE-2014 (Preliminary), 24722 candidates had appeared, out of which 1550 candidates (6.26%) had qualified for CCE (Mains) Examination, and out of them, only 371 candidates (1.5% of total candidates) were called for interview and a total of 180 candidates (0.72% of total candidates) were selected and recommended for appointment. It is submitted that the aforesaid facts and figures is only to show before this Court that but for the illegalities and manipulation committed, the appellants could find entry into service, which they would not have got without pre-recruitment fraud. 35) It has been submitted that all the appellants in this batch of appeals were probationers or temporary employees on the date when their respective discharge orders were passed/issued. It has been submitted that the service rules applicable for the appellants specifically provide for probation, extension of probation, and the requirement of “satisfaction” of the competent authorities for their “confirmation” under their respective service rules. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there are no legal ground for the appellants to contend that their services became confirmed due to efflux of time. 36) It is also submitted that the relevant service rules applicable for the appellants provide for extension of the period of probation. Therefore, there Page No.# 63/134 cannot be implied or deemed confirmation of service, rather, it would only mean that there was a deemed extension of the period of probation and nothing more. 37) It has been submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, apart from charge-sheet no. 3/2017 being submitted, supplementary charge- sheet nos. I to XIV have been filed. Moreover, vide order dated 19.04.2022, charges have been framed by the learned trial court against all those appellants, whose names figure up to Supplementary Charge-Sheet-XI. 38) In support of his submission on non-availability of any right for “deemed confirmation”, the following cases have been cited- (i) G. Ramaswamy v. Inspector General of Police (1964) 6 SCR 279; (ii) Pratap Singh v. UT of Chandigarh (1979) 4 SCC 263; (iii) Satya Narayan Athya v. High Court of M.P. &