Gauhati High Court

Bonti Saikia vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 2 November, 2021

Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010248362019

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7627/2019

BONTI SAIKIA
W/O- S.B.BHARDWAJ, R/O- FLAT NO. 203, PAXEEMAN RESIDENCY,
CHACHAL ROAD, SIX MILE, GHY-22, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW
DELHI-1

2:THE ADDL. SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANIZATION
NACO
NEW DELHI-1

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DISPUR
GHY-6

4:ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GHY-22

5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GHY-22

6:ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM IN CHARGE HR OFFICER
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
Page No.# 2/17

KHANAPARA
GHY-2

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

Linked Case : WP(C)/7624/2019

MINTU RONGPY
S/O- SRI CHABIN RONPY
R/O- LAKHARA
NEAR AXEL PUBLIC SCHOOL
P.O SAUKUCHI
P.S- GARHCHUK
PIN- 781040
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE HEAD OF THE NACO
A DIVISION OF MIN OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
NEW DELHI- 11

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 6
3:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL ORGANISATION
NACO
KHANAPARA
GHY- 22
ASSAM
4:THE ADDL PROJECT DIRECTOR
ASSAM AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
UNDER NACO
KHANAPARA
GHY- 22
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/17

5:MANVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
ERSTWHILE PROJECT DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI 22
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR H K DAS
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/7630/2019

RINI NATH BORAH
W/O- DIPAM J BORAH
R/O- 4A PEE TEE TOWER
JOYA NAGAR SIX MILE
GHY- 22

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
NEW DELHI-1

2:THE ADDL. SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANIZATION
NACO
NEW DELHI-1
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DISPUR
GHY-6
4:ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
6:ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM IN CHARGE HR OFFICER
ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GHY-22
------------
Page No.# 4/17

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

Linked Case : WP(C)/7614/2019

SUSANTA KUMAR SAIKIA
S/O. SRI KUSHAL KUMAR SAIKIA
R/O. 7TH HEAVEN APARTMENT BLOCK 3
4TH FLOOR
NEAR SARUSAJAL GATE NO.2
BETKUCHI ROAD
GUWAHATI-781034.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
NEW DELHI-01.

2:THE ADDL. SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR GENERAL

NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANIZATION
NACO
NEW DELHI-01.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY

KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
5:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR

ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
6:ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CUM IN CHARGE HR OFFICER

ASSAM STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
------------
Page No.# 5/17

Advocate for : MR M J QUADIR
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

Linked Case : WP(C)/7629/2019

APURBA KUMAR KALITA
S/O. LT. DHIREN CH. KALITA
RADHALAYA
GANESH MANDIR PATH HOUSE NO.12
BYE LANE NO.8
NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781020.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
NEW DELHI-01.

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

JUDGMENT

Date : 02-11-2021

The issue involved in all these five writ petitions being identical, the writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The subject matter of dispute in these writ petitions are orders of release of service of the petitioners from the Assam State AIDS Control Society issued by the National AIDS Control Organization. Though the posts held by the petitioners in each of the cases are different, the release is similarly done and therefore, the grounds are almost identical in each of the cases. It is the validity and legality of the said release order dated 26.09.2019 which arise for determination in the present bunch of writ petitions.

3. For better appreciation of the case projected by the rival parties and the issue to be decided, it would be convenient to put on record the facts of the respective cases in brief.

4. The petitioner in WP(C)/7614/2019, Shri Susanta Kumar Saikia was working as a Divisional Assistant under the Assam State AIDS Control Society (hereinafter ASACS). The aforesaid Society is constituted under the National AIDS Control Organization (hereinafter NACO). It is the case of the petitioner that though the initial appointment was for one year, his services were extended from time to time, and by the last extension, though was up-to 31.03.2017, the petitioner was allowed to continue till 07.09.2017, on which date an office order was passed informing that the service of the petitioner was no longer required. The aforesaid action was the subject matter of WP(C)/5689/2019 and other writ petitions wherein, this Court had initially passed an interim order. Subsequently, vide a common order dated 10.09.2019 had set aside the impugned action and had remanded the matter back to the authorities to pass a conscious order. Upon such remand, the present impugned order has been passed on 26.09.2019 releasing the petitioner.

Page No.# 7/17

5. Similarly, the petitioner in WP(C)/7624/2019, Shri Mintu Rongpy was initially appointed as an Assistant Director in the Society in the year 2010 which was extended from time to time. In the year 2015, a show cause notice was issued against him whereby, very little time was granted to submit the reply. This led the petitioner to file WP(C)/4867/2017 wherein, initially an interim order was passed and was subsequently disposed of by the aforesaid common order dated 10.09.2019. After such remand, the present action has been taken vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 discontinuing the petitioner and further holding that the post of Assistant Director (VBD) has become redundant.

6. The petitioner in WP(C)/7627/2019 Smt. Bonty Saikia had been working as Joint Director in the ASACS on contractual basis similar to the other petitioners. Her services were last extended till 31.03.2017 but allowed to continue till 07.09.2017, on which date, vide an order, the petitioner was discontinued from her service. The aforesaid order was the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions which were disposed of vide the common order dated 10.09.2019 by which the matter was remanded to the Society. Thereafter vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2019, the petitioner has been discontinued from her services.

7. The petitioner in WP(C)/7629/2019, Shri Apurba Kalita was working as Computer Literate Steno in the ASACS. He had also challenged his initial order of termination by filing a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of by the common order dated 10.09.2019. On remand by this Court, the authorities vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 had discontinued the services of the petitioner and the post was itself abolished.

8. Likewise, the petitioner in WP(C)/7630/2019, Mrs. Rini Nath Bora was working as a Deputy Director in the ASACS and her appointment was extended from time to time. Her services were also discontinued which is also the subject matter of challenge in the earlier round of writ petitions which were disposed of by the common order dated 10.09.2019. On remand by this Court, the authorities vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2019 had discontinued the services of the petitioner and the post was itself abolished.

Page No.# 8/17

9. The petitioners allege that such discontinuation is against the interest of public service and has been done whereby not only the petitioners have been prejudiced, the interest of the State of Assam at large has been put to jeopardy as the roles and responsibilities of ASACS are increasing day by day with more people in the society being affected by the disease.

10. I have heard Shri BD Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/7624/2019, 7627/2019, 7629/2019 and 7630/2019 assisted by Shri J Singh, learned counsel whereas Shri MJ Quadir, learned counsel has represented the petitioner in WP(C)/7614/2019. On the other hand, the State is represented by Shri D Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Shri P Nayak, learned counsel and Shri SS Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam. The materials placed before this Court have been duly examined.

11. To appreciate the issue at hand, it would be convenient to refer to the earlier order dated 10.09.2019 passed by this Court in the bunch of writ petitions. This Court had noticed that the earlier round of litigation concerning that discontinuation of the petitioners were stigmatic in nature and this fact was conceded to by the respondents in the course of hearing. In this regard, paragraph 10 of the common judgment and order dated 10.09.2019 is extracted hereinbelow:

"10. On the face of it, the said order appears to be stigmatic in nature. However, further deliberation on this aspect of the matter is considered not necessary because of the fair stand taken by Mr. Saikia admitting that the order is stigmatic in nature. If an order is stigmatic in nature, it will entail adverse civil consequences upon the petitioners. If that be so, then such an order was required to be preceded by at least a notice and hearing which appears to be absent in this case. Therefore, impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained."

12. As a consequential action, this Court observed that while no direction can be issued to the respondents to extend the contractual service of the petitioners, the question of discontinuation beyond the contractual period is a matter liable to be decided by the employer and the Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer. Therefore, while the impugned orders of termination were set aside, the matters were remanded to the ASACS to take a conscious decision on the extension or otherwise of the contractual services of the petitioners.

Page No.# 9/17

13. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that there is no reason to discontinue the petitioners from their employment. It is submitted that the petitioners are connected with the society for almost two decades and had started working for the Society during a period when the disease of AIDS was construed to be not only a terminal disease but with lot of stigmas attached to it. It is contended that when the petitioners had rendered their dedicated services during the prime of their youth and by overcoming all social stigma, discontinuing their services at this stage would be absolutely unreasonable by which the petitioners would be left high and dry. It is further submitted that while the work of the Society as well as the NACO has increased manifold in all directions with expansion at various levels, the petitioners could not have been discontinued from their services.

14. Shri Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to certain documents to project that the budget allotted for the Society by the NACO under various heads are increasing and therefore, it cannot be pleaded by the respondents that there is lack of funds. In this connection, attention of this Court has been drawn to communications dated 24.05.2016, 12.05.2017, 02.05.2018 and 17.05.2019 to show that the budget has been increasing from the year 2016-17 which was at Rs.1760.53 lakhs, for the year 2017-18, it is Rs.1097.86 lakhs, for 2018-19, it is Rs.1853.39 lakhs and for 2019-20, it is Rs.2267.85 lakhs. It is argued that apart from the year 2017-18 when there was small reduction, there is overall increase in the budget and that being the position, it is argued by the learnedcousnel for the petitioners that lack of funds cannot be a reason at all for which the impugned action is being taken.

15. Shri Konwar further submits that a bare look of the office order dated 26.09.2019 would show that the same is discriminatory as the petitioners were chosen to be victims of the same. It is submitted that out of 70 numbers of posts, only 21 numbers have been abolished which would clearly demonstrate discrimination against the petitioners requiring that the impugned action be interfered with. In support of his submissions, the petitioners have placed reliance on the following case laws:

i) Order dated 10.09.2019, passed in the earlier set of writ petitions;

ii) AIR 1963 SC 531; Madan Gopal Vs. State of Punjab;

(iii) (1991) 1 SCC 212; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of Up & Ors.;

Page No.# 10/17

(iv) 2009 (2) GLT 559; Yashimenla Vs. Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland & Ors.;

(v) 2011 (2) GLT 131; Lokho Mao Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.;

(vi) 2012 (4) GLT 686; Mrigen Kalita Vs. North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies Training and Research & Ors.;

(vii) 2018 (1) GLT 441; Rajat Kanti Nag Vs. Union of India;

(viiii) 2011 (5) GLT 661; Saleh Ahmed (Md.) Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

16. The case of Madan Gopal (supra) has been cited to buttress the argument that the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is also applicable to a temporary public servant and the safeguards not being afforded, the impugned action cannot be sustained.

17. The case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) has been relied upon in support of the contention that the action of the State has to be non-arbitrary and should be in consonance with the mandate of Article 14.

18. In the case Yashimenla (supra), this Court has held that having worked for a long period of time in a particular post, a right accrues for consideration for appointment and the service cannot be terminated without notice or opportunity.

19. The case of Lokho Mao (supra) is relied upon to contend that even for termination of a temporary hand, the rigours of Article 311 of the Constitution of India have to be followed.

20. The case of Mrigen Kalita (supra) has been cited that even for a person serving on probation, the principles of natural justice would have a role.

21. In the case of Rajat Kanti Nag (supra), this Court had interfered with an order of termination as the same was not preceded by the prescribed procedure.

22. In the case of Saleh Ahmed (Md.) (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that even in Page No.# 11/17

case of contractual employee, in case of termination, all reasonable opportunities are required to be given to the said employee.

23. Shri MJ Quadir, learned counsel appearing in WP(C)/7614/2019 adopts the argument of Shri Konwar, learned Senior Counsel and submits that a case of interference is made out and a direction may be issued for reinstatement of the petitioners.

24. As indicated above, the State is represented by Shri D Saikia, the learned Advocate General, Assam.

25. Shri Saikia, learned Advocate General has straight away drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 26.09.2019. He submits that a bare look at the said order would reveal that the NACO, vide letter dated 04.08.2014 had advised reduction of the Institutional Strengthening and Project Management (ISPM) expenditure by combining few of the components of HR placing one set of officials. Therefore, with the approval of the competent authority, 21 numbers of posts were abolished and out of these 21, the posts held by the petitioners are also there. It has further been stated in the office order that the posts which are vacant, shall not be filled up until further orders and the contractual personnel, who are working stand released by paying one month salary in lieu of one month notice.

26. It is submitted that out of the total strength of 70, the strength has come down to 49. As a consequence of the aforesaid office order by the subsequent office order of the same date, the five numbers of petitioners had been released from their services. It is submitted that such releases are absolutely on a need basis and based upon a policy decision to reduce the ISPM expenditure whereby 21 numbers of posts have been abolished and only 5, out of those 21 posts, were operational by the contractual engagement of the petitioners. The learned Advocate General, accordingly submits that the allegation of discrimination is absolutely unfounded as no similarly situated persons were treated in a different manner.

27. By reverting to the original orders of appointment, the learned Advocate General submits that the engagement was for one year which would be terminated on completion of the same, if otherwise was Page No.# 12/17

not extended. The said engagement was extended from time to time and on the strength of such orders, the petitioners were continuing. On 07.09.2017, the services of the petitioners were dispensed with as the same was not found to be satisfactory which led to filing of the earlier set of writ petitions which were disposed of vide the order dated 10.09.2019.

28. As indicated above, the order dated 10.09.2019 itself has recorded the concession made on behalf of the State that the order being stigmatic, notice was required to be issued. This Court, however, had held in clear terms that the matter regarding the continuation of the contractual appointment beyond the contractual terms is a matter to be decided by the employer and the Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer and direct extension. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the following case laws:

i) (2008) 9 SCC 242; Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani & Ors.;

ii) (2018) 3 SCC 218; Yogesh Mahajan Vs. Professor , Director, RC Deka;

iii) (2006) 12 SCC 482; Vidyavardhaka Sangha & Anr. Vs. YD Deshpande & Ors.;

iv) 2014 (3) GLT 420; Ajay Kumar Haloi Vs. State of Assam & Ors.;

v) (2006) 4 SCC 1; Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3).

29. In the case of Pushpa Rani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a matter which also involved the issue of judicial review on policy matters relating to creation / abolition of post. In paragraph 37, it has been laid down that such decision would be within the exclusive domain of the employer and the Court cannot suggest the matter in which the employer should structure or re- structure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration.

30. In the case of Yogesh Mahajan (supra), it has been held that that no contractual employee has a right to have the contract renewed from time to time.

31. In the case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the appointment made on probation or ad hoc basis for a specified period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the incumbent can have no right to continue in the said post.

Page No.# 13/17

32. In the landmark case of Umadevi (3) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while laying down the broad guidelines and parameters by which regularization of services is to be considered has also held that long period of service rendered by itself would not be a relevant factor for allowing an incumbent to continue in service when the entry into the services was on contractual or casual basis.

33. This High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Haloi (supra) has held that a writ court would not be the appropriate court to determine the question of termination of services of a contractual employee and if there is any breach of contract in the termination of services of the petitioner, remedy, if any, would lie in the civil court in the form of damages.

34. The gist of the submissions made by he learned Advocate General can be culled down as follows:

i) The decision not to continue the services of the petitioners is need based;

ii) Out of the 70 posts, 21 posts have been abolished as per the policy decision for reducing the ISPM expenditure;

iii) Out of the 21 posts so abolished, apart from those held by the five petitioners, the remaining were all vacant and not utilised;

iv) The discontinuation not being on the basis of any allegation and no stigma being attached to the employees, the question of affording further notice would not arise;

v) The present exercise by which the petitioners have been discontinued is after the remand by this Court in the first round of litigation being order dated 10.09.2019 whereby this Court had also held that it was within the exclusive domain of the employer to take a decision with regard to continuation of the contractual employment of the petitioners.

35. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the rejoinder has fairly admitted that the earlier order of this Court had taken care of the allegation of stigma. It is, however, contended that it was only the posts of the petitioners which were selectively abolished and therefore, there was a requirement of this Court to lift the veil. It is reiterated by the petitioners that the institutional budget being enhanced from year to year, there was no occasion for terminating the services of the petitioners and dearth of funds cannot be a reason at all for such discontinuation. It is also contended that the present reason of Page No.# 14/17

discontinuation was not a defence in the first round of litigation.

36. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

37. There is no dispute in the Bar that the present adjudication is an offshoot of the common judgment and order dated 10.09.2019 passed by this Court in the first round of litigation. This Court, in no ambiguous terms while recording the concession that if the order is stigmatic in nature, a requirement of giving opportunity to the incumbents is necessary and therefore, had come to a conclusion that the said order of discontinuation were not sustainable as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. As regards the consequences, this Court has recorded the following observations in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, which are as under:

"13. Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Saikia that no direction can be issued to the respondents to extend the contractual service of the petitioners, the same being bound by the contract entered into between the parties. It is within the domain of the respondents. Whether a contractual appointment should be continued further beyond the contractual period or not is a matter to be decided by the employer taking into consideration a host of factors. Certainly, Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer and direct extension.

14. Having said that it has also to be borne in mind that while discontinuing extension of contractual appointment of the petitioners, respondents were influenced by the stigmatic remarks made against the petitioners which has now been held by this Court as being in violation of the principles of natural justice and legally untenable. It is difficult to fathom as to what would have been the views of the employer regarding extension or otherwise of the contractual service of the petitioners had the stigmatic remarks not been part of the record. At least Court cannot come to any conclusion in this regard.

15. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that the matter is required to be looked into afresh by the respondents de hors the stigmatic remarks having been interfered with by this Court."

Page No.# 15/17

38. What is to be noted is that the petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid observations in any higher forum and therefore, the petitioners are precluded from basing their present challenge on the ground of jurisdiction and competence of the authorities. This Court has further noticed that the decision to discontinue, mainly on the ground of reducing the Institutional Strengthening and Project Management Expenditure, is essentially a policy decision and the same finds categorical mention in the Office Order No. ASACS/ NACP-IV/ Court Case/ 2017/ 1024/ 51, dated 26.09.2019. In absence of a sustainable challenge to the said policy decision read with the settled position of law regarding the limited scope of this Court to enter into such matters which are within the exclusive domain of the authorities, this Court would not be inclined to interfere with such matters. It is a settled position of law that matters which emanates from a policy can be challenged only on limited grounds, namely, when the policy decision is absolutely unreasonable or palpably against the interest of public or vitiated by mala fides. However, in the instant case, the policy to reduce the ISPM expenditure cannot be said to be a policy which is unreasonable or against the public interest. This Court has also noted above that the materials do not support the case of the petitioners that only they have been chosen to be discontinued from their services. Rather, the order 26.09.2019 would indicate that 21 numbers of posts have been made redundant and out of those, only five were being operated through the petitioners and the other posts were vacant.

39. Though the petitioners have tried to make out a case that the impugned decision is contrary to the overall stand of the respondents by which the institutional budget for the State of Assam is increasing from year to year, that would not be a relevant factor as the increase in the budget may be for certain fields, which according to the authorities, are required to be given importance / preference. Further, it has been held by this Court in the earlier round of litigation disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2019, the decision regarding continuation of the contractual appointment is a matter decided by the employer wherein the Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer. It appears from the records that the discontinuation of the services of the petitioner is a consequence of declaring 21 numbers of posts as redundant pursuant to implement a decision for reduction of ISPM expenditure and such decision being a policy decision, based on reasons, this Court would be loath to interfere with the same.

Page No.# 16/17

40. At this stage, it would be gainful to once again refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra) wherein the issue of judicial review on policy matters relating to creation / abolition of post was under consideration. In paragraph 37 of the said judgment, the following has been laid down:

"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."

41. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that since the discontinuation of the petitioners from their respective services is only on account of abolition of posts which they were holding, in the event the authorities considers reintroduction of the said posts or any equivalent / similar posts, the cases of the petitioners would be considered on priority basis taking into account the long period of service rendered by them. It is also made clear that if the petitioners apply for engagement in any existing vacant posts under the ASACS, their cases would be considered by giving weightage to their past experience and by condoning the upper age limit.

Page No.# 17/17

42. The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

43. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant