Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 17 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010237862025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/351/2025
SRI SASANKA BUJAR BARUAH AND ORS
SON OF KULEN BUJAR BARUAH, RESIDENT OF -HOUSE NO.21, BYLANE
06 JANAPATH NABIN NAGAR GUWAHATI, P.O- ZOO ROAD, P.SGITA
NAGAR, DISTT- KAMRUPM, ASSAM, PIN-781024.
2: SRI MANAS PRATIM NATH
SON OF KHAGENDRA KUMAR NATH
RESIDENT OF- WARD NO.8
SANKAR NAGAR
MANGALDAI
ASSAM
PIN-784125
3: SRI BISHNUBRAT HAZARIKA
S/O SATYENDRAJIT HAZARIKA
R/O- MILIJULI PATH
SIPAHI GAON
P.O ANDP.S- JOYSAGAR
DISTT- SIBSAGAR
PIN CODE-785665.
4: SRI ARUNJYOTI MIRI
S/O- SUDHAN KONWAR MIRI
R/O- BAMUN DOLONI
PAHUMARA
DISTT- LAKHIUMPUR
PIN-787031.
5: JUBI BEGUM
D/O- SAMSER ALI
R/OVILL-DOLAITOLA
P.O- SANIADI
P.S- HAJO
DISTT- KAMRUPR
Page No.# 2/13
PIN-781102
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 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 COMMISSIONER
FINANCE EC-III DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI781006.
5:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APSC)
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY.
6:THE ASSAM ENGINEERING RECRUITMENT SERVICE BOARD
ASSAM TEXTILE INSTITUTE CAMPUS
AMBARI
GUWAHATI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
Advocate for the Petitioner : G. GOSWAMI, MR H K NATH,A J KASHYAP
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, APSC,SC, FINANCE
Linked Case : WA/352/2025
MS GEETA KULI AND ORS
D/O- SUKUDHAR KULI
R/O- HOUSE NO. 3
MIRI PATHAR
Page No.# 3/13
ARADHOL NAGAKHELIA
WARD NO6
P.O- ARADHOL
P.S- DHEMAJI
DISTT- DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN787057
2: SRI SHIVAM NATH
S/O- SHISHIR NATH
R/O- VILL- UTTARJOSNABAD PART-I
DISTT- HAILAKANDI
P.OAND P.SLALA
ASSAM
PIN-788163
3: SRI SARBOJYOTI DEB PURKAYASTHA
S/O-SITANGSHU DEB PURKAYASTHA
R/O- CENTRAL ROAD
SILCHAR-1
OPP. SWAMI MEDICAL HALL
DISTT- CACHAR
ASSAM
P.O AND P.S-SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788001
4: SRI KAUSHIK DUTTA
S/O-DILIP DUTTA
R/OGNB ROAD
NEAR GAURIPUR FIELD
P.O- DHUBRI
PIN-783301
5: SRI AYAN BHATTACHARJEE
S/O- ASHIM BHATTACHARJEE
R/O- H.NO.-36
SUNDARI MOHAN ROAD
RANGIRKHARI
SILCHAR
DISTTCACHAR
PIN-788005
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Page No.# 4/13
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 COMMISSIONER
FINANCE EC-III DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI781006.
5:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (APSC)
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OR SECRETARY
6:THE ASSAM ENGINEERING RECRUITMENT SERVICE BOARD
ASSAM TEXTILE INSTITUTE CAMPUS
AMBARI
GUWAHATI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
------------
Advocate for : G. GOSWAMI
Advocate for : SC
HIGHER EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Date : 17-11-2025
(A.D. CHOUDHURY, J)
1. We have heard Ms. G. Goswami, learned Advocate for
the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned
Page No.# 5/13
Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 in both the appeals.
2. Both the appeals being inter-connected, have been
heard together and are being disposed of 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 Lecturers in different subjects at the newly established
five Polytechnics in the district of Tinsukia, Hailakandi, Chirang,
Morigaon and Udalguri. The colleges had started functioning from
the year 2020 and the appellants were appointed against an
Advertisement issued on 25.02.2020 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,
Page No.# 6/13
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 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 260 posts for these five colleges 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.
Page No.# 7/13
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 regularization 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 57
permanent posts of Lecturer (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
Page No.# 8/13
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.
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
Page No.# 9/13
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 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 regularized 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
Page No.# 10/13
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 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)
Page No.# 11/13
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. 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
Page No.# 12/13
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 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-
Page No.# 13/13
noted judgment impugned in the present set of appeals.
The appeals thus are dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
