AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri M Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam. Though the names of the learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been shown in the cause list, none has appeared on their behalf.
The matter pertains to a challenge made to the appointment orders dated 09.11.2012, 28.08.2013, 13.03.2013, 27.12.2013, 29.12.2012 and 19.12.2013
in favour of the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 issued by the Chairman, Bilasipara Town Committee.
It is the case of the petitioners that such appointments were made without following the due process of law, and in this regard, Shri Hussain, learned
counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the replies obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) wherein, a
specific question was made as to whether the appointments were preceded by any advertisement.
In view of the specific replies made under the RTI Act to such application, there is hardly any scope for this Court to take any other view but to hold
that the said appointments have been done without following the due process of law.
This Court on the last occasion i.e., 16.07.2021 had noted that though names of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 had appeared in
the cause list, they were unrepresented. Similar was the position when the matter was taken up 06.12.2019.
In fact, this Court vide the order dated 16.07.2021 had observed that an endeavour would be made to dispose of the writ petition on the next date
fixed.
Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam, submits that since the matter pertains to the Bilasipara Town Committee, he is not the custodian of the
records and the case may be decided on the basis of the materials available before the Court.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the appointments of the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 were made without following
the due process of law, this Court is of the view that a case for interference is made out by the petitioners. This Court has also noted the second
prayer made in the writ petition that in case, the aforesaid posts are required to be filled up, that should be done by a proper recruitment process, in
which the petitioners as well as similarly situated eligible candidates would have a fair chance.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the orders of appointment dated 09.11.2012, 28.08.2013, 13.03.2013, 27.12.2013, 29.12.2012 and 19.12.2013 of
the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that in the event the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 had served on the
strength of such appointments, their salaries may not be recovered. The Bilasipara Town Committee would also be at liberty to fill up the said posts of
LDA-cum-Typist and Data Entry Operator which, however, has to be done strictly in accordance with law relating to recruitment.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.