ASSAM ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present two appeals mentioned above, relates to the same subject matter viz. about promotions in the Department of Assam Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services. These appeals have been listed and heard together. They are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The Writ Appeal No. 212/96 has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.3.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 2535 of 1992. It may be indicated here that by means of the said judgment the learned Single Judge had disposed of two petitions namely, Civil Rule No. 104 of 1993 along with Civil Rule No. 2535 of 1992. In Civil Rule No. 2535/92, out of which the present appeal arises, a prayer was made to declare Rule 11(5) of the Assam Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairy Development Services Rules, 1988, ultravires as well as for a mdandamus commanding the Respondents to refrain from acting in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.92 published in the Assam Tribune by which applications were invited for direct recruitment to the different posts of officers in the department. In Civil Rule No. 104/93 filed by Dr. Gopal Baruah also the vires of Rule 11(5) of the Rules of 1988 referred to above and the advertisement dated 11.11.92 were impugned. Hence, the Civil Rules noted above were decided by one order.

(3.) So far as Writ Appeal No. 598/96 is concerned, it arose out of Civil Rule No. 2361/ 96. By means of the said petition the selection held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.92 was challenged and a prayer was made for quashing the list of selected candidates for appointment, on various posts in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary namely, on the posts of Additional Director, Joint Directors, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors and Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer. As a matter of fact, the process of selection was challenged which according to the petitioner suffered from many defects. The petition was, however, dismissed by judgment and order dated December 10,1996.