GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON MANASHI HAZARIKA V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, May 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.326/2022 and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.10/2023. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, GAD, representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Writ Appeal No.326/2022 and respondent Nos. 2 & 4 in Writ Appeal No.10/2023, Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate, representing the respondent Nos. 4 in Writ Appeal No. 326/2022 and respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in Writ Appeal No.10/2023.

2. These two appeals are preferred against a common judgment and order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5430/2016 and WP(C) No.6730/2016.

3 The Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, published an Advertisement on 04.04.2007, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up of few posts of amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner's Office, Dhemaji. Amongst the posts advertised, there were two posts of Stenographer with the educational qualification of having 10+2 with Shorthand and Typing speed of 80 and 30 words per minute respectively. It was also provided that preference will be given to Computer Diploma Holders and having knowledge of Word Processing. However, in the said recruitment process, there were no qualified candidates to fill up the posts of Stenographers.

4 Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji published another Advertisement on 27.02.2008 for filling up two posts of Stenographers and the educational qualifications stipulated therein was HSSLC Examination or an equivalent Examination of recognized University or Board with Shorthand and Typing speed of 80 and 30 words per minute respectively. It was also provided that preference will be given to Computer Diploma Holders and having knowledge of Word Processing. Further, the scale of pay was provided as Rs.3850-90-4480-120-4600-DB-120-5200-175-6600-250- 7350/- per month plus other allowances as admissible as per Rules. The advertisement further stipulated that appointment against the sanctioned vacant post will be made in accordance with the provisions of Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 under Section 7(1)(G) (AFRBM Act of 2005 in short). The advertisement further provided that appointments will be made after getting necessary approval from the Government of Assam, General Administration Department.

5 Pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.02.2008, the appellants in both the writ petitions along with others submitted their applications for the said posts of two Stenographers. After completion of the selection process, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji by two separate orders, both dated 17.06.2008, appointed the appellants in Writ Appeal No.326/2022 as Stenographer (under qualified) against sanctioned vacant posts of Stenographers in the scale of pay of Rs.3010-60-3490-90-3850- EB-90-4480-120-5200-175-6075/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the Amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the scale of pay against which the two appellants were appointed was lower than the advertised scale of pay as per the advertisement dated 27.02.2008. Being aggrieved with the appointments of the appellants in Writ Appeal No.326/2022, the appellants in Writ Appeal No.10/2023 as writ petitioner along with four others assailed the appointment orders of the appellants in Writ Appeal No.326/2022. The said writ petition was registered as WP(C) No.3197/2008, which was disposed of by an order dated 16.06.2011 with a direction to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the General Administration (B) Department to examine the matter based on the material available on record and to pass appropriate orders as deemed expedient in law. It was further observed that, while taking action, the authority should also consider whether, in the meantime, the two respondents have acquired the required qualification and whether they should be given an opportunity to do so.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfGZYVGV90YLZZS23dbpfv6B2vUUWRKFaQbrtMd8nw9CS&caseno=WA/10/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010212872022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.