GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 3 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 2:
1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner assailing the appointment of the private respondent No. 4 to the post of Administrative Officer under the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rule, 1967. Both the petitioner and the private respondent were serving as Senior Assistant in the district of Bajali. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for filling up of the post of Administrative Officer in the amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Bajali by Advertisement dated 17.07.2021, both the Petitioner and the private respondent along with other similarly situated persons submitted their candidatures. Their candidatures were duly considered and pursuant thereto, the Selection Board recommended the appointment of the private respondent for the post of Administrative Officer. In pursuance thereto, the competent authority in the government issued the appointment order dated 02.03.2024.
2. Writ Petition No. 1338 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendations of the selection body. Subsequently when the appointment order came to be issued, W.P(C) No. 6583 of 2024 was filed. Both the writ petitions therefore, are taken up together for hearing and disposal.
3. Mr. P.K. Roy Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has assailed the recommendation and the consequential appointment to private respondent on the ground that the private respondent does not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule of 1967). It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner satisfies the criteria specified under the Rules but the private respondent does not. However, this was overlooked by the Selection Body and also by the appointing authority and therefore the selection and appointment of the private respondent is in conflict with the criteria specified under Rule 8 (i)(a) of the Rules of 1967. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that the Rule 8 (i)(a) specifies experience of 15 years in any Deputy Commissioner's Establishment and experience of having worked in different branches in general and also the establishment branch in particular. Referring to the particulars available in the pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had more than 15 years of service and has the experience of working under different branches, including the establishment branch under the office of the Deputy Commissioner. However, the private respondent although has some experience of rendering services in different branches, however, he does not have the experience of rendering service in the establishment branch in particular. It is submitted that the minutes of the meeting which are enclosed to the writ petition does not take into consideration this fact. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is reflected that the petitioner has worked under the Personnel (Establishment) Branch with effect from 27.03.1987 to 31.07.1989, which is for 2 years and 4 months whereas insofar as the private respondent is concerned, he had rendered services under the Personnel Branch and Administration Branch. Referring to the particulars reflected in respect of the private respondent in the Minute, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the personnel branch works undertaken by the private respondent is shown to have been in respect of matters relating to accounts and establishment.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqGs%2BimlwPTcQ6KlKL%2BTG3YWhMiSKuTJxcUW8MPcJCZiP&caseno=WP(C)/1338/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010047862024&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
