Writ Petition (C) No. 1639 of 2009. Case: Mukut Kalita Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | Writ Petition (C) No. 1639 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: D.K. Sarmah, P.S. Lahkar and K. Goswami, Advs. And For Respondents: U. Rajkhowa, Adv. |
| Judges | Amitava Roy, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2009 (4) GLT 807 |
| Judgement Date | July 31, 2009 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The Petitioner seeks the nullification of the order dated 30.10.2008 of the Commissioner of Transport, Assam, Guwahati, declining him to grant appointment to the post of LD Assistant in the said Department contending in addition for an order and/or direction to provide him therewith in compliance of the Judgment: and order dated 23.08.1999 passed by this Court in CR No. 2192/1997.
2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. U. Rajkhowa, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, Assam (hereafter for short referred to as the department).
3. As the learned Counsel for the parties have advanced their arguments for final disposal at the motion stage on the basis of the materials presently available before this Court, this order would dispose of the instant proceeding on merits.
In substance the Petitioner's pleaded version is that in response to an advertisement issued by the District Transport Officer, Kamrup in the year 1992 for filling up vacant posts of LDA-cum-Typist in the department, he offered his candidature, and following the completion of the selection process a select list of the successful candidates, on merits, was drawn up on 14.05.1992, in which his name figured at Sl. No. 14. As, according to the Petitioner, the departmental authorities resorted to pick and choose method in providing appointments, the select list notwithstanding, he approached this Court with CR No. 2192/1997, seeking for an appropriate writ and/or direction for his appointment. Meanwhile the candidates at Sl. Nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the select list, had also instituted CR No. 441/1995 and CR No. 1824/1996 with the same grievance. This Court by its Judgment: and order dated 23.08.1999 allowed the Petitioner's writ petition with a direction to appoint him to the post of LDA-cum-Typist in the Department.
Though, no appeal was preferred against the same, the State Respondents sought a review of the said Judgment: and order but, this Court by its order passed in Review Application No. 106/2000 declined to do so.
4. Being aggrieved by the non-implementation of the directions of this Court as above, the Petitioner instituted contempt case being Cont. Case (C) No. 359/2000. The stand taken by the Respondents in this proceeding, eventually, was that they had been rendered unable to implement the Judgment: and order dated 23.08.1999 in view of the rendering of a Full Bench this Court on 17.05.2006 in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being 2006 (2) GLT 654 Shri Jitendra Kalita v. State of Assam, dwelling on the competing claims of regularization of the muster roll worker/work Charged employees in all Departments of the State and appointment of persons selected for common posts. The Respondents further pleaded that their interpretation of the above decision of the Full Bench being that thereby all select lists including the one dated 24.06.2003 had been set aside, no further action on the Petitioner's select list dated 14.05.1992 was warranted.
5. By order dated 18.08.2008 passed in Cont. Case (C) No. 359/2000, this Court noticing the above stand of the Respondents required them to place before it orders in writing on the basis thereof. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30.10.2008 was passed reiterating the same stand. The Petitioner's claim for appointment on the basis of the select list dated 14.05.1992 and in terms of the Judgment: and order dated 23.08.1999 passed in CR No. 2192/1997 was negated. By order dated 11.02.2009 this Court dismissed the aforementioned contempt case observing that judged by the understanding of the decision of the Full Bench and the implication thereof, as comprehended by the Respondents, they could not be held to have acted in wilful defiance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial