BISHNU PRIYA PRADHAN SMTI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the writ petitioner namely Smti Bishnu Priya Pradhan made a prayer for a direction to the respondents to appoint/regularise her services in the post of Lower Division Clerk in short LDC, in pursuance of the related select list prepared during the year 1996 or, in the alternative, in terms of the Government policy/scheme of regularisation of ad-hoc services issued by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh vide, circular bearing Nos. OM 6/91 dated 31.7.96 and 19.9.96 as seen in the documents marked Annexure-19 series by contending inter alia, that she was initially appointed as skilled contingent peon in the Block Development Office, Zero, Lower Subansiri District in the year 1991 and subsequently in the year 1993 she was given a fresh appointment to the post of LDC on ad-hoc basis vide, appointment order dated 3.9.93 as in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, and her ad-hoc services have been extended from time to time till 8.8.96 (AN) against clear vacant post as seen in the document marked as Annexures A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A- 9 and A-16 series and, during the existence of the said ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner in the post of LDC another order dated 9.7.96 was issued by the authority concerned thus appointing the petitioner as skilled contingent peon as seen in the document marked as Annexure-18 to the writ petition without any justification, however, the petitioner has been discharging her duties as LDC as on today but, her ad-hoc services have not been regularised under the related scheme/Govt. Circular mentioned above. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was also selected for her appointment in the post of LDC and her name was enlisted in the panel, in the year 1996 and she is the sole OBC candidate, but the respondents authority did not appoint the petitioner and apart from that the respondents authority did not act upon the select list, inasmuch as, they had violated the reservation policy. According to the petitioner, if the reservation policy is/was to be followed, the petitioner being the lone OBC candidate, the authority concerned ought to have given appointment to her in the said post of LDC in terms of the related select List.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is resisted by the respondents/competent authority by stating that the petitioner could not qualify in the selection process held by the authorities and as such her name was not amongst the 15 selected candidates notified by order dated 2.6.96, and the petitioner could not be accommodated due to non-availability of post of LDC at the point of time. At this stage, I may observe that the authority concerned admitted about the enlistment of the name of the petitioner in the panel list at Serial No. 25 and at Serial No, 8 according to the merit amongst the non- APST candidates. The respondents also contended that the services rendered by the writ petitioner was not continuous and there was break of services during her ad- hoc appointment and such the ad-hoc appointment/stop gap arrangement does not bestow to her any claim for regular appointment and, the life of the select list/ panel list had already expired. So far the related office memorandum/circular and claim of the writ petitioner in terms of it is concerned, the State-respondents stated that due to selection of a regular candidate on the recommendation of the DPC/ selecting authority, the said circular does not give to the aid of the writ petitioner.

(3.) Mr S. Dutta, learned counsel, supporting the case of the writ petitioner, submitted that one Shri Subodh Nath who is similarly situated with the writ petitioner has been given appointment on regular basis to the post of LDC in terms of the related order dated 17.1.2000 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 4806 of 1998 as seen in the document marked as 'X' for identification vide, order dated 2.3.2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. According to Mr Dutta, the State-respondents ought to have regularised the services of the writ petitioner in the post of LDC in terms of the related circular bearing on 6/91 dated 31.7,96/19.9.96, but, the authority concerned did not consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said circular/ scheme. It is also argued by Mr Dutta that a great discrimination has been meted out by the respondents authority towards the petitioner as the petitioner has been deprived of her regular appointment as to the said post of LDC in the existing facts and circumstances of the case. Supporting the case of the petitioner, Mr Dutta, learned counsel had relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in Thangjam Yaima Singh, petitioner-Vs-State of Manipur & Ors, respondents reported in 2001 Volume 2 GLT page 637 and contended that no discrimination should be made in giving benefits of a judgment of the Court to the persons similarly situated.