TAGUM TATAK Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-79
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AT: ITANAGAR)
Decided on January 11,2018

Tagum Tatak Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AJIT BORTHAKUR - (1.) Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Tatak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Ms. L. Hage, learned counsel appearing for the State Respondents.
(2.) The petitioners' case precisely is that pursuant to an advertisement, dated, 7.3.2008, to fill up the posts of Assistant Inspector (Tax and Excise) along with other posts, issued by the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Tax and Excise, the petitioners applied for the said posts. The advertisement did not carry the number of vacant posts to be filled up. The petitioners appeared in the written and viva-voce tests as per plan of recruitment examination set out in the advertisement itself. Thereafter, the result was declared selecting 24 (twenty four) candidates for the post of Assistant Inspector (Tax and Excise) as per merit and the petitioners were placed in serial nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the waiting list, but they were not given appointment due to shortage of posts. Later on, the petitioners came to know through an RTI application that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh under the department of Tax and Excise had accorded sanction of 30 (thirty) posts of Assistant Inspector (Group-C) on 30.05.2007 and accordingly, advertisement was issued on 07.03.2008, to fill up the post.
(3.) The petitioners have contended that the advertisement was made on the basis of the recruitment rules viz. 'The Assistant Inspector (Tax and Excise) Recruitment Rules (Amendment) 1999'. As per Rule 2, 90% posts are to be filled up through direct recruitment, through a written test followed by viva-voce test and 10% by promotion from the feeder cadres. According to the petitioners, out of 30 (thirty) vacant posts of Assistant Inspector (Tax and Excise), none of the departmental feeder cadres were promoted and as such, 6 (six) posts meant for promotion from the feeder cadre were left to be filled up. In the meantime, the respondent authority illegally appointed 04(four) persons to the post of Assistant Inspector (Tax and Excise) without holding any selection process.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.