Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010237942025
2025:GAU-AS:15346-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/356/2025
MD ABDUL AZIZ ALI
S/O LATE NURUL ISLAM,
R/O VILL. 1 NO. MIRIHULA,
P.O. MORANHAT, DIBRUGARH, PIN 785670
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.
2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI -781019
4:THE ASSAM ENGINEERING RECRUITMENT SERVICE BOARD
ASSAM TEXTILE INSTITUTE CAMPUS
AMBARI
GUWAHATI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
5:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APSC)
Page No.# 2/11
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY.
6:THE PRINCIPAL
DHEMAJI ENGINEERING COLLEGE
DHEMAJI
PIN-78705
Advocate for the Petitioner : G. GOSWAMI, A J KASHYAP,MR H K NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, FINANCE,SC, APSC
Linked Case : WA/358/2025
JONALI DAIMARY AND ANR
D/O SHRI KAMALESWAR DAIMARY RESIDENT OF VILL- SARUFULCHAKI
GORESWAR
DIST- BAKSA
P.SGORESWAR
PINCODE- 781366
2: SHRI DIBYA JYOTI DANG
SON OF DUREN CHANDRA DANG
RESIDENT OF GREENLAND VILLAGE
RATANPUR
DHEMAJI
PIN CODE-787057
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781006.
2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/11
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI -781019
4:THE ASSAM ENGINEERING RECRUITMENT SERVICE BOARD
ASSAM TEXTILE INSTITUTE CAMPUS
AMBARI
GUWAHATI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
5:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APSC)
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY.
------------
For the appellants : Ms. G. Goswami, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate,
Standing Counsel, APSC
Mr. K. Gogoi,
S.C., Higher Education
Mr. S. Das,
S.C., Higher Education
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
12-11-2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Ms. G. Goswami, learned Advocate for the
appellants in both the appeals and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing
Counsel, Higher Education Department for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in both
the appeals.
Page No.# 4/11
2. Both the appeals being inter-connected, have been heard
together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
3. By the impugned common judgment dated 26.09.2025, the
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants that their appointment,
notwithstanding the fact that it was under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam
Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951
(hereinafter to be referred as 'Regulations, 1951') was a permanent
appointment and, therefore, they ought not to have been released from
service when fresh recruitment process was initiated and completed, has
been rejected.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were appointed
as Assistant Professor (Non-Technical) in different science subjects at the
newly established Dhemaji Engineering College in Assam. The college
had started functioning in August 2020 and the appellants were
appointed against an Advertisement issued on 07.02.2020 by the Director
of Technical Education, Assam. Under the advertisement, applications
were invited for filling up various posts, including that of Assistant Professor
under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951. The afore-noted
Regulation allows for temporary appointments in urgent situation without
full involvement of the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter to
be referred as 'APSC') to avoid delays. The appellants claimed to have
applied, passed the written test, whereafter their documents were
verified and were appointed sometimes in February, 2021, initially for four
months on ad-hoc basis. The services of the appellants were extended
multiple times with the last extension being in September, 2023 when a
Page No.# 5/11
fresh selection process was completed based on a cabinet decision
dated September 12, 2023.
5. The claim of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was
that even prior to the Advertisement of 2020, the Government of Assam
in its Department of Higher Education (Technical) had created 111 posts
for the college after obtaining financial concurrence on February 3 and
4, 2020. The appellants, therefore, contend that notwithstanding the
Advertisement issued in the year 2020, clarifying that it was under
Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951, their appointments were against
the sanctioned permanent posts. The posts could not be called
temporary.
The other reason, which the appellants contended before the
learned Single Judge for treating their services as regular and not ad-
hoc, was the grant of ex-post facto approval by the Government to their
appointments from the date of their joining pursuant to a cabinet
decision on November 24, 2021.
6. Ms. Goswami, learned Advocate for the appellants contends that
this, if not in the beginning, ultimately elevated the status of the
appellants to a permanent employee with regular pay and allowances.
Another factor, which was brought to the notice of the learned
Single Judge, was that there was an Office Memorandum issued on
December 15, 2021 preventing the appellants and other similarly situated
persons from applying from other government job in similar positions for
up to three years. This was a definite indice of an evidence of
Page No.# 6/11
regularisation of their services as it restricted their opportunities elsewhere.
The hopes of the appellants were dashed to the ground in February,
2023 when a fresh advertisement was issued for filling up 46 permanent
posts of Assistant Professor (Non-Technical) through the Assam
Engineering Service Recruitment Board (AESRB), a new body created by
the Government of Assam for conducting recruitment process in the
Engineering colleges. This had led the appellants and others to file writ
petitions challenging the same, fearing termination of their services.
7. In sum and substance, the contention of the appellants before the
learned Single Judge was that though the advertisement was issued
under the rubric of Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951, but their
appointments were effectively regular because it followed a regular
selection process of advertisement, written test, verification of documents
etc. against the vacant sanctioned posts which had received ex-post
facto approval of the Government. They were, for all practical purposes,
the founding faculties whose names were listed as regular staff, perhaps
to obtain annual approval from the All India Council for Technical
Education (hereinafter to be referred as 'AICTE'), which mandates
permanent faculty for running engineering education programmes. The
AICTE norms allow contractual faculty only under extraordinary
circumstances or for short durations but not indefinitely. Since the
appellants continued beyond four months' limit, coupled with multiple
extensions and approval, it implies nothing else than regularisation of
their services.
Page No.# 7/11
8. Before this Court, the learned Advocate for the appellants
contended that in fact under such circumstances, provisions contained
in Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951 ought not to have been
invoked as the provisions under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951
are meant for temporary, unsanctioned posts, which would be filled up
with undue delay if the appointment process is referred to the Assam
Public Service Commission. Since the posts were sanctioned prior to the
initiation of the process of recruitment and consequent advertisement,
the invocation of Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951 was improper
and only reflected the ad-hocism of the State in the matter of the
technical education.
9. Lastly, it was submitted that the learned Single Judge did not apply
himself appropriately to the issues raised which ultimately has ended up
in violation of the rights of the appellants under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
10. The countervailing arguments on behalf of the respondents are that
the advertisement against which ad-hoc appointment of the appellants
were made, unequivocally and explicitly stated that the appointments
were ad-hoc under Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951 for four
months due to the urgency of staffing in the new colleges which had
been recently established. The ex-post facto approval was only for the
purpose of release of pay and allowances which was no evidence of
any intention of regularising the services of the appellants. The appellants
were aware of the temporary nature of the recruitment. The Government
in its wisdom had constituted the Assam Engineering Services Recruitment
Page No.# 8/11
Board in the year 2021 and had amended the Rules in the year 2022 for
effecting regular recruitments in the Engineering Services of the State,
replacing the role of the Assam Public Service Commission.
It was further contended by Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel,
Higher Education Department that mere long service or multiple
extensions would not confer any right on the appellants to claim that
their services had already been regularised without a competitive
process for appointment on the permanent posts. After conducting the
fresh process of recruitment by the AESRB, in which the appellants had
also participated, they were released from their assignments. It appears
that the appellants were not successful. However, Mr. Gogoi contends
that for the appellants having participated in that recruitment process, it
clearly evinces that they had clear idea of their ad-hoc status.
11. We have examined the Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951,
which reads as hereunder:
"3(f) when an appointment is to be made by direct recruitment to a temporary
post created in a service if it is necessary in the public interest that the
appointment should be made immediately and reference to the Commission
would cause undue delay; provided that if the post has been sanctioned for, or
is likely to last for more than four months, the Commission shall as soon as
possible, be consulted in all matters mentioned in sub-clause (3) of Article 320
of the Constitution."
12. This clearly specifies that if an appointment is to be made by direct
recruitment to a temporary post created in a service and such
recruitment is to be made immediately in public interest, in order to avoid
Page No.# 9/11
delays in the public service commission driven recruitment process,
Regulation 3(f) could be invoked, provided that the recruitment had to
be made on a post which is temporary and the delay in such recruitment
would be against the public policy. However, this regulation has another
caveat by way of proviso which mandates that in cases of recruitment
for sanctioned posts also or for posts which are likely to last for more than
four months, the Public Service Commission of the State shall be
consulted on matters enumerated in sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the
Constitution.
13. Few new Engineering Colleges were set up where staffing on urgent
basis was required. It was precisely for this reason that invoking the
provisions contained in Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951, an
advertisement was issued for filling up the posts of Assistant Professor
(Technical and Non-Technical) and Senior Instructor, clearly indicating
that such appointments shall be purely on ad-hoc basis for a period of
four months. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the
invocation of Regulation 3(f) was unnecessary, is not sustainable even
when the recruitment was made against sanctioned posts. It was
because of the necessity of continuing with such recruitment beyond
four months, that multiple extensions were given. This would not be taken
to be an ad-hocism on the part of the State administration.
14. The reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs.
Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221; Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 13 SCC 432; Dharam Singh and others vs.
Page No.# 10/11
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Civil Appeal No.8558/2018 is, to say with
utmost humility at our command, not apt or necessary. In all these cases,
referred to above, what has been adversely commented upon is the
continuance of ad-hoc engagement on grounds of straitened financial
circumstances of the State and pure laxity in going for regular
appointments, indicating opaqueness of the administration.
15. In the present case, the engagement of the appellants on an ad-
hoc post was under the statute which provided for such a concession to
the recruiting body to go for ad-hoc appointments, without such
appointment process to be conducted by the Public Service
Commission.
16. True it is that multiple extensions had to be accorded to the
appellants but within four years, with the creation of a special technical
board for conducting the recruitment process for the Engineering
Colleges, the exercise of making regular appointments were made in
which the appellants had also participated but unfortunately they did
not come out successful.
17. The case of the appellants cannot at all be said to be akin to such
ad-hoc or temporary employees of the Government, who face all kinds
of exploitation. Here the foundational purpose of ad-hoc appointment
was public necessity for staffing the newly constructed college and
commencing teaching in such colleges that resort was made to
Regulation 3(f) of the Regulations, 1951. It takes time for the Government
to establish recruiting bodies for which necessary personnel has to be
Page No.# 11/11
mobilised. It was but not a long drawn process. Within four years, fresh
recruitment drive was conducted for filling up the post of Assistant
Professor and other posts necessary for running the colleges.
18. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found that merely because the
appellants were given extensions; their appointments were against the
sanctioned posts and that there was an ex-post facto approval, their
services could not have been clothed with the regular status.
19. The habiliments of regularity in service relates to the nature of
appointment under a particular provision. The ad-hoc appointment of
the appellants was not under stealth but under statutory provision for four
months.
20. Thus, in our estimation, the learned Single Judge has justifiably
rejected the contentions of the appellants and we do not consider it
appropriate to make any interference with the afore-noted judgment
impugned in the present set of appeals.
The appeals thus are dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
