Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 9 Ors on 12 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010128352020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3915/2020
AMINUL ISLAM AND 6 ORS.
S/O- AZAHARUL ISLAM, R/O- WARD NO. IX, P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI,
ASSAM.
2: KAMAL HUSSAIN AHMED
S/O- LT. SUKUR ALI MUNSHI
R/O- BARKALIA PART- I
P.O.- FAKIRGANJ
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
3: NASIR ALI MONDAL
S/O- JAMIR UDDIN MONDAL
R/O- CHALAKURA PART- III
P.O.- FAKIRGANJ
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
4: ROBIAL HOQUE MONDAL
S/O- LT. SURMAN ALI MONDAL
R/O- CHALAKURA PART- III
P.O.- HAMIDABAD
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
5: AFTAB UDDIN AHMED
S/O- LT. FAZAR UDDIN AHMED
R/O- POUND ROAD
WARD NO. 4
PO. AND DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
6: SAHABUL AHMED
S/O- LT. NASIR UDDIN AHMED
Page No.# 2/5
R/O- COLLEGE ROAD
WEST DHUBRI (BIDYAPARA PART- III)
P.O.- KHALILPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
7: MOTIOR ROHMAN PARAMANIK
S/O- LT. KABIL UDDIN PARAMANIK
P.O.- POCHAR CHAR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
POLITICAL (B) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
JUDICIAL DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY- 6.
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
4:RITUPARNA GUHA
ASSTT. GOVT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (1ST)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
5:GOKUL CHANDRA KARMAKAR
ASSTT. GOVT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (2ND)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
6:ADHIR CHANDRA ROY
ASSTT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (4TH)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
7:ANINDA PAUL
ASSTT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (5TH)
Page No.# 3/5
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
8:SHANKAR PRASAD CHAKRABARTY
ASSTT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (8TH)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
9:ANANDA KUMAR RAI
ASSTT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (9TH)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101.
10:SANGITA KEORI
ASSTT. PLEADER
C/O- FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL (10TH)
DHUBRI
PIN- 783101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 12-09-2022
Heard Mr. BC Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. D Mozumder, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Ms.
P Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel
for the respondent No. 4.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 08.09.2020 by
which the services of the petitioners, who were engaged as Assistant
Government Pleaders (in short 'AGP') in the various Foreigners Tribunals were
terminated with immediate effect.
Page No.# 4/5
The petitioners' case is that they had been appointed as AGP in the
Foreigners Tribunals, Dhubri on 02.03.2019 in pursuance to the Office
Memorandum dated 21.11.2015. The services of the petitioners were however
terminated vide the impugned notification dated 08.09.2020.
The petitioners' case is that the tenure of an AGP is for a period 2 (two)
years and the same is renewable only after satisfactory performance is shown
and there has been consultation with the concerned member of the Foreigners
Tribunal.
The petitioners' counsel submits that the condition precedent required for
renewal of an AGP would be the same prior to terminating the services of an
AGP. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of:
(i) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in
(1991) 1 SCC 212 (para 17, 19, 20, 24, 34, 35 and 48)
(ii) State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Johri Mal, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 714 (para
56, 84, 87)
(iii) Jyotirmoy Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2021 (3)
GLT 579 (para 35 and 36)
(iv) State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr., reported in
(2016) 6 SCC 1 (para 41.6, 41.11, 41.12 and 48)
Mr. D Mozumder, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, on the other
hand submits that Clause-5 of the Office Memorandum dated 21.11.2015 which
requires satisfactory performance of an AGP and consultation with the
concerned member of the Foreigners Tribunal, for renewal of the tenure of an
AGP beyond 2 (two) years, is not applicable in cases when the engagement of
Page No.# 5/5
the AGP has not been renewed. He further submits that the use of the word
'termination' in the impugned notification dated 08.09.2020 should be construed
to be 'discontinuation' of the concerned AGP. He also submits that the AGP do
not have any vested right for renewal once they have completed their tenure of
2 (two) years. He also submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari
Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors ., reported in (1991) 1
SCC 212 at paras 10 and 12 shows that the facts of the case therein and the
facts of the case herein is different. He submits that the persons working as AGP
in the above case were in respect of offices and posts under the Government,
having service conditions. On the other hand, the engagement of the AGP in the
present case was purely contractual and professional in nature.
Mr. D Mozumder, learned counsel further submits that as this Court has
already passed an order in a similar nature, the copy of which he has not
brought today, the matter may be adjourned to enable to bring him the copy of
the order.
List this matter on 27th September, 2022.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
