Page No.# 1/53

GAHC010256042023

2026:GAU-AS:1074-

DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WA/428/2023

NARAYAN PRASAD RABHA AND 16 ORS

S/O- LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD RABHA, VILL- MATIA, PO- MATIA, PIN-

783125, DIST- GOALPARA.

2: UTPAL JYOTI KALITA

S/O- BASUDHAR KALITA

VILL- SUTERKUCHI

P.O.- PINGALESHWAR

DIST.- KAMRUP.

3: JYOTI PRAKASH BARUAH

S/O- GIRISH CH. BARUAH

VILL- BORAH TOLAHAJO

P.O.-HAJO

PIN- 781102

4: KALYAN DAS

S/O- LATE PRANESWAR DAS

VILL- BANIAPARA

PO- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

DIST- GOALPARA

5: DINANATH RAJBHAR

S/O- LATE SARJU PD. RAJBHAR

VILL- SHASTRINAGAR

PO- GOALPARA

PIN- 783121

DIST- GOALPARA

6: RASHIDUL ALOM

S/O- AKKASH ALI

Page No.# 2/53

VILL- KHUDRAFALADI

PIN- 781305

PO- BHOGDIA

DIST-BARPETA

7: MINA RABI DAS

S/O- LATE SUMER RABI DAS

VILL- SHASTRINAGAR

PO- GOALPARA

PIN- 783121

DIST-GOALPARA

8: RAMEN DAS

S/O- LT. HARI DAS

VILL- BARSIBHANI

PO- BAGHMARA BAZAR

P.S- BARPETAPIN- 783101

DIST- BARPETA

9: JOY PRAKASH RABI DAS

S/O- LT. SUMER RABI DAS

VILL- SHASTRINAGAR

PO-BALADMARI P.S-GOALPARA

PIN- 783121DIST- GOALPARA.

10: JEET DAS

S/O- KARTIK DAS

VILL- NARSHINGBARI

PO-GOALPARA

P.S-GOALPARA

PIN- 783121

DIST- GOALPARA

11: PABAN PATHAK

S/O- RATNESWAR PATHAK

VILL- NAGAON

COLLEGE ROAD

PO- NAGAON

P.S- NAGAONPIN- 781311

DIST- BARPETA

12: SANKAR DEY

S/O- RATAN DEY

VILL- J.N. ROADPO

PS ANDDIST- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

13: SHOBHAN KUMAR NATH

Page No.# 3/53

S/O- TIKAL CH. NATH

VILL-GAROBHATKHAWA PO- BHAGBWAN

PIN- 783129DIST- GOALPARA

14: KANAK CH. GHOSH

S/O LT. ANIL CH. GHOSH

VILL.- GOALTULI

P.O.- GOALPARA

P.S.- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

DIST.- GOALPARA.

15: SANKAR RABI DAS

S/O LT. SUMER RABI DAS

VILL.- SHASTRINAGAR

P.O.- BALADMARI

P.S.- GOALPARA

PIN- 783121

DIST.- GOALPARA.

16: DHANJIT DAS

S/O LT. GOBARDHAN DAS

VILL.- GANAK KUCHI

P.O.- BARPETA

P.S.- BARPETA

PIN- 781301

DIST.- BARPETA.

17: DHIRAJ RABHA

S/O LT. PHUKAN RABHA

VILL.- BAPUJINAGAR

P.O.- BALADMARI

P.S.- GOALPARA

PIN- 783121

DIST.- GOALPARA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS (A)

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,

GUWAHATI- - 781006, ASSAM.

2:THE SECRETARY

Page No.# 4/53

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- - 781006

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI- - 781036

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

GOALPARA

ASSAM.

5:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

SERVICES)

HANGRABARI

GUWAHATI- 3

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SINGHA, MR R SINGHA,MS S PATOWARY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH,

Linked Case : WA/429/2023

LOMBIT KONWAR AND 16 ORS.

S/O. SRI NUMAL KONWAR

R/O. JAMIRAH GOHAIN GAON

P.O. BEHEATING

DIBRUGARH.

2: MUJIBUR RAHMAN

S/O. APSER RAHMAN

VILL. 2 NO. BHARGAJ

P.O. DEHING TIHAN

P.S. DEMOW

SIVASAGAR-786571.

3: GOJEN SAIKIA

S/O. LT. BIRAN SAIKIA

R/O. KONWARI GAON

Page No.# 5/53

P.O. KONWARIGAON

DIBRUGARH-786615.

4: JYOTIMONI BARUAH

W/O. BAPUTI BARUAH

R/O. MANCOTTAK ACHARIBARI

P.O. MANCOTTA

DIBRUGARH-786003.

5: LOPU SONOWAL

S/O. BINU SONOWAL

R/O. NO.1 CHARAIBAHI GAON

P.O. KOLOWLAWA

P.S. KHOWANG

DIBRUGARH-785676.

6: MRIDUL BARUAH

S/O. LT. ANARAM BARUAH

R/O. JAJALI HABI GAON

P.O. BANAMALI

P.S. KAKATIBARI

SIVASAGAR-785689.

7: RAJIB GOGOI

S/O. LT. JAYKANTA GOGOI

R/O. JAMIRAH KAPOW GAON

P.O. DHAMALGAON

DIBRUGARH

PIN-786004.

8: SRIMATI REKHAMONI BAGREE

D/O. LT. ROBIN BAGREE

R/O. MANCOTTA TEPOR GAON

P.O. MANCOTTA

DISBRUGARH-786003.

9: TAPAN DEKA

S/O. SRI BANESWAR DEKA

R/O. PARBATIA ROAD

TINSUKIA

P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA-786125.

10: TRALYA BORAH

S/O. SRI DAYANANDA BORAH

R/O. BHATI NAMDANG VILL.

P.O. CHAHARIKATA

DIBRUGARH-785676.

Page No.# 6/53

11: CHANDAN CHETRY

S/O. SRI SHYAM CHETRY

R/O. CHOWKIDINGEE

UDAYPUR P.O.- C.R. BUILDING

DIBRUGARH

786003.

12: BIJOY CH. DAS

S/O. SRI NAREN CH. DAS

R/O. GRAHAM BAZAR

P.O. GRAHAM BAZAR

DIBRUGARH-786001.

13: SRIMATI RITUMONI KALITA BORA

W/O. SRI KULA BORA

R/O. BERRY WHITE COLONY

P.O. AND DIST. DIBRUGARH.

14: GULAP HAZARIKA

S/O. LT. JITRAM HAZARIKA

R/O. MESLOW GAON

P.O. MESLOW

DIBRUGARH.

15: SRIMATI OMSHREE KALITA

D/O. SRI NALIN KALITA

R/O. LATHA GAON

P.O. DERGAON

GOLAGHAT.

16: HITENDRA BHARALI

S/O. SRI ROMESH CH. BHARALI

R/O. CHABUWA D WARD

P.O. CHABUR

DIBRUGARH.

17: TUTU SONOWAL

S/O. LT. PRAFULLA SONOWAL

R/O. ROWMARI KACHARI GAON

P.O. BEHEATING TINIALI

DIBRUGARH.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. E

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPTT.

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

Page No.# 7/53

ASSAM.

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPTT.

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI-781036

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM.

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

DIBRUGARH

GUWAHATI-781036

ASSAM.

5:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDL. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES)

HANGRABARI

GUWAHATI-36.

------------

Advocate for : MR M GOSWAMI

Advocate for : SC

HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. E

Linked Case : WA/453/2023

JAYANTA HAZARIKA AND 19 ORS

S/O. LT. BISHNU HAZARIKA

R/O. CHIRANG CHAPORI

P.O. DIBRUGARH

DIST. DIBRUGARH-786001.

2: BASISHTHA KALITA

S/O. LT. DHARANI DHAR KALITA

R/O. VILL. AND P.O. LAWPARA

DIST. NALBARI-781126.

3: MANAB JYOTI BAGLARI

Page No.# 8/53

S/O. SRI SUNANDA BAGLARI

R/O. ROWMARI KACHARI GAON

P.O. BEHEATING

DIBRUGARH-786004.

4: MILON DEKA

S/O. SRI BHABEN DEKA

R/O. GRAHAM BAZAR

P.O. GRAHAMBAZAR

DIBRUGARH-786001.

5: RAJESWAR DEKA

S/O. SRI BHABEN DEKA

R/O. GRAHAM BAZAR

BERRY WHITE COLONY

DIBRUGARH-786001.

6: SEEMA BARUAH KHOUND

C/O. PUSPA BARUAH

R/O. DIBRUJAN

P.O. JALAN NAGAR

DIBRUGARH-786005.

7: TRAILUKYA GOGOI

S/O. LT. BIREN GOGOI

R/O. 2 NO. GHURANIA GAON

P.O. TINGKHONG

DIBRUGARH-786612.

8: TRALOKYA SONOWAL

S/O. LT. GAJEN SONOWAL

R/O. MANCOTTA TEPOR GAON

P.O. MANCOTTA

DIBRUAGARH-786003.

9: ANUP GOGOI

S/O. LT. ARUN GOGOI

R/O. BARPATHAR KONWARGAON

P.O. BEHEATING TINIALI

DIBRUGARH-786004.

10: SRIMATI BANDANA RAO

W/O. SRI ROBIN RAO

R/O. KHALIHAMARI

RED CROSS ROAD

DIBRUGARH-786001.

Page No.# 9/53

11: KALYAN GOGOI

S/O. ARUN CH. GOGOI

R/O. BORPATHER KONWAR GAON

P.O. BEHEATING TINIALI

DIBRUGARH.

12: NABA JYOTI GOGOI

S/O. SRI KUMUD CH. GOGOI

R/O. NATUN TAKELA GAON

P.O. MOHANAGHAT

DIBRUGARH.

13: ABHIJIT DAS

S/O. SRI ARABINDA DAS

R/O. MANCOTTA TOMTOMTULLA

HATIMURA

P.O. MANCOTTA

DIBRUGARH.

14: MANUJ BARUAH

S/O. SRI LALIT BARUAH

R/O. LAPETKATA KACHARI GAON

P.O. BARBARUAH

DIBRUGARH.

15: DULEN SONOWAL

S/O. LT. MEGHA SONOWAL

R/O. LEPATKATTA KACHARI GAON

P.O. BARBARUAH

DIBRUGARH.

16: HARI NARAYAN SAIKIA

S/O. SRI BOKUL SAIKIA

R/O. KHOWANG ATHASARI GAON

P.O. KHOWANG GHAT

DIBRUGARH.

17: ASHIM RAJKHUWA

S/O. SRI TARUN RAJKHUWA

R/O. DIMOGURI GAON

P.O. LAIPULI

TINSUKIA.

18: DILIP GOGOI

S/O. SRI DIMBESWAR GOGOI

R/O. KADAM BAGAN GAON

Page No.# 10/53

P.O. KADAM

LAKHIMPUR.

19: DIPJYOTI GOGOI

S/O. SRI RUHINI GOGOI

R/O. NIZ MANCOTTA BOIRAGIMOTH

P.O. BOIRAGIMOTH

DIBRUGARH.

20: MOHAN SONOWAL

S/O. SRI MONESWAR SONOWAL

R/O. JOKAI KALIONI GAON

KHAMTI GHAT

DIBRUGARH.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM ANDN 4 ORS. B

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HEALTH ANF FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPTT.

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

ASSAM.

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPTT.

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI-781036

KAMRUP (M)

ASSAM.

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

DIBRUGARH

GUWAHATI-781036

ASSAM.

5:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDL. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES)

HANGRABARI

Page No.# 11/53

GUWAHATI-36.

------------

Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR(P-1)

Advocate for : SC

HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM ANDN 4 ORS. B

Linked Case : WA/144/2024

PRADIP BORGOHAIN AND 85 ORS

SON OF LATE UMA KANTA BORGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF NAMDANG GOHAIN GAON

P.O- KUMURAJAN

P.S- GAURISAGAR

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785664.

2: TRIDIP BARUAH

SON OF SRI SUCHIL BARUAH

RESIDENT OF NAZIRA RAJAPOOL HANDIQUE GAON

P.O- RAJAPOL. P.S- NAZIRA

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785685.

3: BISWA NARAYAN DUTTA

SON OF SRI RAMESWAR DUTTA

RESIDENT OF VILL AND P.O- JOYRAPAR

PS AND DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785697.

4: KESHA GOGOI

SON OF SRI GANGADHAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILL- BANGMUKH HANDIQUE

P.O- JOYRAPAR

P.S AND DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785640.

5: PHANIDHAR GOGOI

SON OF SRI BUDHESWAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF BANMUKH HANDIQUE GAON

P.O- JAYAPAR

P.S AND DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785640.

6: BIMAN BARUAH

SON OF ATUL BARUAH

RESIDENT OF RAJAPOOL HANDIQUE GAON

Page No.# 12/53

P.O RAJAPOOL

P.S- NAZIRA

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785685

7: RUHINI BURAGOHAIN

SON OF NAGEN BURAGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF VILL- BOKATA KHAMUN GAON

P.O- KHAMUN

P.S- NEMUGURI

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785697.

8: SUMANTA BARUAH

SON OF DAMODAR BARUAH

RESIDENT OF VILL- CHAWDANG GAON

P.S- CHEREKAPARA

P.O- KUJHIBALI

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785701.

9: PRANAB BORGOHAIN

SON OF SRI RAMKANTA BORGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF VILL- MECHAGAR AMKOTIA DEMOW KINAR

P.O- AMKOTIA

P.S- NAZIRA

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785640.

10: PRAKASH GOGOI

SON OF SRI PURNANANDA GOOGI

RESIDENT OF VILL- BETBARI

LUTHURI CHETIA

P.O- MITHA PUKHURI

P.S AND DISTRICT SIVASAGAR.

11: BINOD GOGOI

SON OF BHOGESWAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILL- MOTIACHIGA KONWAR GAON

P.O- RAJMOU

P.S- NAZIRA

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785685.

12: RUPAM GOGOI

SON OF RADHA GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LEZAI GAON

P.O- NOHAT

Page No.# 13/53

P.S - DEMOW

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785662.

13: DHANIRAM CHETIA

SON OF PADU CHETIA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPOOL HANDIQUE GAON

P.O- RAJAPOOL

P.S - NAZIRA

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785685.

14: PARTHA PRATIM PHUKAN

SON OF TIKHESWAR PHUKON

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHADHARA

P.O-KHELUA

P.S-SIVASAGAR

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785701

15: PRANATI PHUKAN

DAUGHTER OFSRI BISHNU RAM PHUKAN

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RIRIA

P.O- DEMOWMUKH

P.S- SIVASAGAR

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785663.

16: INAJATDDIN AHMED

SON OF LT. NIZAMATUDDIN AHMED

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RIRIA

P.O- DEMOW MUKH

P.S AND DIST -SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785663.

17: NABAJYOTI GOGOI

SON OF CHANDRA KANTA GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOKATA KHAMUN GAON

P.S- NEMUGURI

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785697.

18: SUROP BORGOHAIN

SON OF SONDHAR BORGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF P.O- KAMURAJAN

P.S-JOYSAGAR

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785664.

Page No.# 14/53

19: RUPAM DUTTA

SON OF DEBAJYOTI DUTTA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DICIAN GAON

P.O- DHULIAPAR

P.S-JOYSAGAR

DISTRICT SIVASAGR

PIN - 785640

20: MINTU SAIKIA

SON OF PRADIP SAIKIA

RESIDENT OF P.O- AMGURI

P.S-AMGURI

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785680.

21: ANUP DUTTA

SON OF KAMAL DATTA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEMOW

P.O- DEMOW

P.S-DEMOW

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785662.

22: KICHYUT BARUAH

SON OF AMAL BARUAH

RESIDENT OF RESIDENT OF JOYSAGAR MEDICAL COLONY

P.S- JOYSAGAR

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785640.

23: EKANTA DUTTA

SON OF DEBA DUTTA

RESIDENT OF JOYSAGAR MEDICAL COLONY

P.S- JOYSAGAR

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785640.

24: RUKHESWAR GOGOI

SON OF MOHENDRA GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHETIA KOIBARTTA

P.O- MITHAPUKHURI

DISTRICT SIVASAGR

PIN - 785697.

25: PABITRA GOGOI

SON OF DIMBESWAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE METEKA KUSHUNAGAR

Page No.# 15/53

P.O- METEKA

P.S-SIVASAGAR

DISTRICT SIVASAGAR

PIN - 785640.

26: KANCHAN KUMER DEHINGIA

SON OF TUPIDHAR DEHINGIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHERKAPAR

KHELUA GAON

P.O- CHEREKIPAR

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640.

27: MANAKH KONWAR

SON OF BHUBAN KONWAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MECHAGAR

BURAGOHAIN GAON

P.O- MECHAGARH

P.S.- NAZIRA

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785685.

28: MONI BORA

DAUGHTER OF BROJEN BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOHUABARI

P.O- BAMRAJABARI

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785671.

29: SHIMA GOGOI

SON OF LATE THUKESHWOR GOGOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIBRUAL

P.O- BORBORUAH

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640.

30: SANTANU BORGOHAIN

SON OF LATE GUBIN CHANDRA BORGOHAIN RESIDENT OF

P.O- AMKATIA

P.S- NAZIRA

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785605.

31: MRIDUSMITA SHARMA

WIFE OF JADOV CH SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALOO GAON

P.O- KALOO GAON

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785666.

32: PURNIMA DUTTA

WIFE OF MUKUT DUTTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAHI GAON

P.O- HOLOGURI

Page No.# 16/53

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785664.

33: MOMI GOGOI

DAUGHTER OF LATE BUPARAM GOGOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE

NIMAIJAAN GAON

P.O- BHADHARA

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640.

34: DAMBARU DEHINGIA

SON OF LATE GANESH DEHINGIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NITAI PUKHURI

KONWAR GAON

P.O- NITAI PUKHURI

P.S- DEMOW

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785671.

35: JUMI KONWAR GOGOI

WIFE OF MRIDUL KUMAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ROGHURIGURI

P.O-BHADHARA

P.S- SIVASAGAR

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640.

36: BHASKAR PHUKAN

SON OF LATE BHABESH PHUKAN

RESIDENT OF NAHARKOTIA MILAN NAGAR

P.O- NAHARKOTIA

PINCODE- 786610

37: GIRIN DEHINGIA

SON OF PUNESHOWAR DEHINGIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHYAN

DEHINGIA GAON

P.O- PALENGI

P.S- DEMOW

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785671.

38: MEDINI MOHAN GOGOI

SON OF DURGESHWAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF SONARI TOWN

NAHARALI

WARD NO. 13

PO AND PS SONARI

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785690.

Page No.# 17/53

39: SHANTU BURAGOHAIN

SON OF LATE NUMAL CHANDRA BURAGOHAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-

SUNPURA GOHAIN GAON

P.O- PANIBIL

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785685.

40: TRILOKYA DEKA

SON OF HALIRAM DEKA

RESIDENT OF JOYSAGAR MEDICAL COLONY

P.S- JOYSAGAR

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785640.

41: TOFIKUR RAHMAN

SON OF LATE SORIFUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MOHAN GAON

P.O- MONMOHAN GAON

P.S- SONARI

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785689.

42: LUHIT CHETIA

SON OF SRI MUNIN CHETIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHEREKAPAR

KHELUA

P.O-CHEREKAPAR

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640.

43: PALLAB CHETIA

SON OF SRI SARBESHWAR CHETIA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHATIAPAR

P.O- BHATIAPARA

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785667

44: MONJIT RABHA

SON OF LATE RUPESHWAR RABHA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORBHETA

CHEUNI GAON

P.O- BORBHETA

PINCODE- 785004

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

45: PANKAJ BURAGOHAIN

SON OF SRI ATUL BURAGOHAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MEEHAGORH

AMKOTIA GAON

P.O- AMKOTIA

Page No.# 18/53

P.S- NAZIRA

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785668.

46: DIPANKAR CHIRING

SON OF SRI DIPAK CHIRING

RESIDENT OF BETBARI NO. 2 KONWAR

P.O- BETBARI

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

47: JITEN PHUKAN

SON OF LATE NILA KANTA PHUKAN

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PANBECHA

P.O- BETTENA

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

48: SRIMATI MINASHI MILL

WIFE OF SRI DARSHAN MILI

RESIDENT OF CHANIMORA

P.O- CHANIMORA

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

49: INDESHWAR PANING

SON OF LATE ANANTA RAM PANING

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORRPAK

P.O-MACHKHOWA PINCODE- 787058

DISTRICT- DHEMAJI.

50: BIPIN DOWARAH

SON OF LATE CHENERAM DOWARAH

RESIDENT OF PALINGI DHYAN GAON

P.O- PALINGI PINCODE- 785672

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

51: MULU AHMED

SON OF LATE HABIJUDDIN AHMED

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DEMOW DEHAJAN TINI ALI

P.O- DEMOW

PINCODE- 785662

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

52: RABDULLA ALI

SON OF AFSU ALI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- - 2 NO. BHATGAJ

Page No.# 19/53

P.O- DIHING THANA

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

53: PAPU YADAV

SON OF SRI BABUL YADAV

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DEMOW

P.O- DEMOW

PINCODE- 785662

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

54: SRIMATI CHAMPA BORA CHIRING

WIFE OF SRI PADUM CHIRING

RESIDENT OF BETNBARI NO. 2 KONWAR GAON

P.O- MITHAPUKHURI

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

55: SRIMATI JUNMONI CHETIA CHANGMAI

WIFE OF SRI PROBHAT CHANGMAI

RESIDENT OF BETBARI BORPATRA GAON

P.O MITHAPUKHURI

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

56: SRIMATI NAYANMONI KHANIKAR

WIFE OF SRI RATUL HIRA BARUAH

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMGURI

P.O- MORANHAT

P.O- MORANHAT

PINCODE- 785670

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

57: SRIMATI MONJU BORPATRAGOHAIN

DAUGHTER OF SRI ROMEN CHANDRA PATAR

RESIDENT OF HASHCHARA RAILING CHUTIA GAON

P.O- HAHCHARA KUJIBALI

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

58: SRIMNATI HEMASHREE BORO

WIFE OF SRI BUHWISAT BASUMATARY

RESIDENT OF DHUPGIRI

P.O- SASTRAPARA

PINCODE- 784510

DISTRICT- UDALGURI.

59: AHIDUR RAHMAN

SON OF SRI MOFIJUR RAHMAN

Page No.# 20/53

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SORAGURI

P.O- DIKHOWMUKH

PINCODE- 785664

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

60: SUMIT KUMAR BORAH

SON OF SRI TARA NATH BORAH

RESIDENT OF SONARI TOWN

WARD NO.11

NEAR ASTC BUS STAND

P.O- SONARI

PINCODE- 785690

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

61: SRIMATI GIRIMONI CHETIA GOGOI

WIFE OF SRI TRAILUKYA GOGOI

RESIDENT OF RANGUR NAGAR

P.O- SIVASAGAR

P.S- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

62: MRIDUL DUTTA

SON OF SRI DILIP DUTTA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PALANGI DHYAN GAON

P.O- PALINGI

P.S- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785672

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

63: NAJIBUR RAHMAN

SON OF SRI MUJIBOR RAHMAN

RESIDENT OF PALINGI DHYAN GAON

P.O- PALINGI PINCODE- 785672

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

64: DIJEN HAZARIKA

SON OF- LATE BHUBAN HAZARIKA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAT GAZ GAON

PINCODE- 785671

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

ASSAM.

Page No.# 21/53

65: UTTAM DEHINGIA

SON OF LATE GOKUL DEHINGIA

RESIDENT OF- DEMOW EKARANI GRAND

P.O AND P.S- DEMOW

PINCODE- 785662

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

ASSAM.

66: ARUP JYOTI DUTTA

SON OF SRI ANANDA DUTTA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANDARMARI GAON

PINCODE- 785662

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

67: DIGANTA GOGOI

SON OF LATE NOBIN GOGOI

RESIDENT OF - DEMOW MILAN NAGAR

P.O AND P.O- DEMOW

PINCODE- 785662

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

68: BIKASH GOGOI

SON OF SRI JIBESHWAR GOGOI

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NIMAIJAN

P.O- BHADHARA

PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

69: SRIMATI MAMONI BHATTACHARYYA

WIFE OF SRI BIKASH BHATTACHARYYA

RESIDENT OF- NEW AMALAPATTY

P.O- SIVASAGAR

PINCODE- 785604

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

70: BABY PHUKAN

DAUGHTER OF LATE BHUDESHWAR PHUKAN

RESIDENT OF BETBARI DAW GAON

P.O- MITHAPUKHURI PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

71: SRIMATI PARBATI KUMARI SHARMA

Page No.# 22/53

W/O- SRI KHEM PRASAD SHARMA

RESIDENT OFF KASARJ LINE

AMGURI TOWN

P.O- AMGURI

PINCODE- 785680

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

72: KAMAL THAPA

S/O- LATE TIL BAHADUR THAPA

RESIDENT OF JOYSARAR

JUNAKI NAGAR

P.O- RUDRASAGAR PINCODE- 785640

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR.

73: SRIMATI MONIKA PHUKAN

W/O- SRI RANJAN BORGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULPANICHIGA

P.O- PHULPANICHIGA PINCODE- 785683

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

74: SRIMATI BHARTI BEZARUAH

W/O- SRI BORMANDA BEZARUAH

RESIDENT OF NAZIRA TOWN

P.O- NAZIRA

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

75: MUNINDRA BORGOHAIN

SON OF SRI GOPAL BORGOHAIN

RESIDENT OF MECHAGAR

DIMOWKINER

P.O- AMKATIA

DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

76: SRIMATI DIPAMOI CHUTIA

W/O- SRI NRIPENDRA NARAYAN CHUTIA

RESIDENT OF MECHAGAR

DIMOWKINER

P.O- AMKATIA

PINCODE- 785697 DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR

77: RAMIZ ALI

S/O- HUSSAIN ALI

Page No.# 23/53

RESIDENT OF VILL- DA-DHARA

P.O- PALENGI

P.S- DEMOW

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM.

PIN- 785640.

78: BANU RAHMAN

C/O- ABDUL GAFFAR

REDIDENT OF VILL- MEZENGA

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785640

79: RAJESH DUTTA

C/O- SUNIL DUTTA

RESIDENT OF VILL- HABIRAM BORA PATH

DIST- SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785640

80: DHANESWARI BASFOR

C/O- BOLOW BASFOR

RESIDENT OF VILL- SIMALUGURI

DIST- SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

81: RAGLU RAMU

C/O- RAGLU KANAYA

RESIDENT OF VILL- DA- DHARA

P.O- PALENGI

P.S.- DEMOW

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785640

82: ROFIKUL ROHMAN

C/O- ROYAL ROHMAN

RESIDENT OF VILL- THOWRA BAMUN BARI

P.O- RAJMAI

Page No.# 24/53

P.S- DEMOW

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM.

PIN- 785672.

83: ROBIUL ISLAM

C/O- NAZRU ISLAM

RESIDENT OF VILL- THANAMUKH

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785640

84: MUSLIMA BEGUM

C/O- ROYAL ROHMAN

RESIDENT OF VILL- THOWRA BAMUN BARI

P.O- RAJMAI

P.S.- DEMOW

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

PIN- 785672.

85: KUSHAL KUMAR DAS

S/O- SRI HARENDRA NATH DAS

RESIDENT OF VILL RONGPUR

P.O.DHULIPARA

PIN- 785640

DIST. SIVASAGAR

ASSAM

86: MINTU BAYAN

SON OF PADMA BAYAN RESIDENT OF AMLAPATTY

P.O- SIVSAGAR

WARD NO. 9

IN THE DISTRICT OF SIVASAGAR

PIN- 785640

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS A

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPTT. DISPUR

GUWAHATI-781006

ASSAM

Page No.# 25/53

2:THE SECRETARY

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI - 781006

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR

HEALTH SERVICES

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI - 781036

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR

HEALTH SERVICES

SIVASAGAR

GUWAHATI - 781036

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

5:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

SERVICES)

HANGRABARI

GUWAHATI- 36

------------

Advocate for : H AHMED

Advocate for : SC

HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS A

Linked Case : WA/31/2024

SUBRATA SAHA AND 14 ORS.

S/O LATE SUKUMAR SAHA

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOALTULI

PO

PS AND DIST GOALPARA

ASSAM

783101

2: DHIRAJ CHANDRA GHOSH

S/O- LT. ATUL CHANDRA GHOSH

VILL- BELTOLA PO- BALADMARI

P.S- GOALPARAPIN- 783384

DIST- GOALPARA

3: SUBRATA GHOSH

Page No.# 26/53

S/O- LATE HARAKANTA GHOSH

VILL-GOALTULI PO

PS ANDD IST- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

4: MRINAL KANTI DEY

S/O- LT. HITESH DEY

VILL- ABHAYAPURI

PO- ABHAYAPURI

P.S- ABHYAPURI

PIN- 783384

DIST- BONGAIGAON

5: SUMIT GHOSH

S/O- NAGEN CH. GHOSH

VILL- GOALTULI PO- GOALPARA

P.S-GOALPARAPIN- 783101

DIST- GOALPARA

6: INDRA MOHAN ROY

S/O- LT. HIRULAL ROY

VILL- BAPUJINAGAR PO-BALADMARI

P.S-GOALPARAPIN- 783121

DIST- GOALPARA

7: MAHADEV DAS

S/O- LATE HIRULAL ROY

VILL- BARBHETA

P.O.-BARBHETA

P.S.- KHARMUZA

DIST.-GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

8: DEBAJIT BARMAN

S/O- ANIL BARMAN

VILL-GOALTULI

PO- GOALPARA

P.S- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101 DIST-GOALPARA

9: DIPANKAR GHOSH

S/O- LT. PARESH CH. GHOSH

VILL- GOALTULI PO- GOALPARA

PIN- 783101

DIST-GOALPARA

10: UJJAL CHOUDHURY

S/O- LATE KARUNA CHOUDHURY

Page No.# 27/53

BILASIPARA

DIST-DHUBRI

11: ABDUL FARHAD

S/O- ABDUL KADDUS

VILL- KHUDRAFALADI PO- BHOGDIA

PIN- 781305

DIST-BARPETA

12: JAMANUR RAHMAN

S/O- ABDUL LATIF

VILL- KUKARPAR

PO- KHONGRA

PIN- 781305

DIST-BARPETA

13: JALAL KHAN

S/O- MILAN KHAN

VILL- KHUDRAFALADI

PO- BYASKUCHI

PIN- 781307

DIST-BARPETA

14: ABDUL NAJRUL

S/O- ABDUL KADDUS

VILL- KHUDRAFALADI PO- BHOGDIA

PIN- 781305

DIST-BARPETA

15: RAHUL AMIN

S/O- MIACHAN ALI

VILL- KHUDRAFALADI PO- BHOGDIA

PIN- 781305

DIST-BARPETA

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF

ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI- - 781006

ASSAM.

2:THE SECRETARY

TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

Page No.# 28/53

GUWAHATI- - 781006

ASSAM.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI- - 781036

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

GOALPARA

GUWAHATI- - 781036

KAMRUP (M) ASSAM.

5:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

SERVICES)

HANGRABARI

GUWAHATI- 36

------------

Advocate for : MR D K DAS

Advocate for : SC

HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

For the Appellants : Mr. M. Goswami, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. R. Singha, Sharma, Sr. Adv. Assisted

by Mr. D. Deka, Adv.

Mr. A. Dakh, Senior. Adv. assisted by Ms.

H. Ahmed, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam, assisted

by Mr. D.Upamanya, SC, Health & W

Department.

Date on which Judgment is

Page No.# 29/53

Reserved : 05.01.2026

Date of pronouncement of

Judgment : 30.01.2026

Whether the pronouncement

is of the operative part of the

Judgement : NA.

Whether the full Judgment has

been pronounced : Yes.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(A.D.Choudhury, J)

1. The Intra-court Appeals challenge the common judgment & order

dated 29.09.2023, passed in WP(C)/1931/2020 and in the other connected writ

petitions.

2. The appellants were appointed as Grade-IV employees in the year

2004-2005 against substantive vacancies under the Joint Director, Health

Services, Dibrugarh and Goalpara. They continued to serve until their services

were terminated in 2019. All these appellants were terminated from their

services, and the termination was challenged before the learned single judge.

3. The learned single judge upheld the termination under the

impugned judgment.

4. We have heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Advocate assisted

by Mr. R. Singha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in

WA/429/2023 and WA/428/2023; Mr. R. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. D. Deka, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in

WA/453/2023, Mr. A. Dakh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. H. Ahmed,

Page No.# 30/53

learned Advocate for the appellants in WA No.144/2024. Also heard Mr. B.

Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D.

Upamanya, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare

Department, Assam.

5. The facts, in a nutshell, in WA Nos. 428/2023, 429/2023, 453/2023 &

31/2024, are that on 4.12.2004 and 3.1.2005, two separate advertisements were

issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Dibrugarh and Goalpara,

respectively, seeking applications for selection and appointment to a number

of grade-IV posts. In October 2005, the respective Joint Directors issued the

appointment orders, and since then, the appellants have been working and

have received their salaries.

6. The appellants in WA No. 144/2024 were initially engaged during

the periods of 1999-2005 on an ad-hoc or casual basis against the vacant posts

and, upon completion of continuous service and availability of permanent

vacancies, their services were regularised during the periods of 2009-2011 with

effect from their initial dates of engagement.

7. In 2017, the allegations of illegal appointments of Surveillance

Workers in the Health Department were raised. Accordingly, on 27.03.2017, the

Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare

Department, directed the Director of Health Services, Assam, to conduct a

screening process for Surveillance Workers to verify the genuineness of their

services.

8. Accordingly, a screening committee was constituted on 17.05.2017

to verify appointment orders, transfer orders, and service books of all grade-IV

staff, including Surveillance Workers, in all districts under the Directors of Health

Services. Accordingly, the Director of Health Services, Assam, directed all the

Joint Directors of Health Services of the concerned districts to submit lists of

Page No.# 31/53

Grade-IV employees.

9. The Joint Directors of Health Services of Dibrugarh and Sivasagar

directed that all Grade-IV staff under their control appear before the

Screening Committee constituted for this purpose. A similar exercise was also

carried out in the Goalpara district as well.

10. The procedure continued, and finally, the Grade-IV employees were

directed to appear before the screening committee on 09.08.2017 in

Guwahati, along with all relevant original documents to prove the genuineness

of their appointments. Subsequently, in February 2018, show-cause notices

were issued to Grade-IV employees whose appointments were found to be not

genuine, asking why they should not be removed from service for the

irregularities detected by the Screening Committee.

11. Some of these employees, including the petitioners, thereafter,

approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3051/2018, WP(C) No. 940/2019 &

WP(C) No. 1556/2019.

12. The aforesaid petitions were disposed of, directing the respondents

to extend the screening exercise to enable everyone to participate. It was

further provided that if any serving person is found not to be genuine, the

authorities should specify the precise deficiency and afford the affected

employee an opportunity before any adverse action is taken.

13. Subsequently, in June 2019, the Joint Director of Health Services

issued show-cause notices to those whose appointments were found to be not

genuine in the Screening Committee Report, asking them to prove the

genuineness of their appointments, failing which they should be terminated

from service.

14. Thereafter, the petitioners once again approached this Court by

Page No.# 32/53

filing WP(C) No. 4130/2019 & WP(C) No. 4513/2019, alleging that the exercise is

in violation of the Court’s earlier order dated 18.05.2018 passed in WP(C) No.

3051/2018. The same were closed by a learned Single Judge under its order

dated 31.07.2019, in the backdrop of a stand taken by the Director of Health

Services, Assam that a decision has been taken by the Health Department to

withdraw the show cause notices and to issue fresh show cause notices

mentioning the specific deficiency found against each illegal employee

including the appellants, so that each show caused employees get an

opportunity to know his/her deficiency and respond effectively. A liberty was

granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law.

15. Subsequently, in August 2019, fresh show-cause notices were issued

highlighting the deficiency. The deficiency highlighted was that “the scrutiny

committee's report contained deficiencies against them.”

16. The appellants filed replies to such show cause notices and sought

the report of the Scrutiny Committee, contending that, without knowing the

deficiencies, they would not be in a position to effectively reply to such show

cause notices. Subsequently, in October, 2019 & November 2019, the

appellants were removed from their services.

17. At this stage, another batch of writ petitions was filed, the leading

writ petition being WP(C)/8271/2019, challenging such action.

18. This Court under its order dated 26.11.2019, passed in the aforesaid

writ petitions, set aside the orders of removal for the reason that show cause

notices to the petitioners were issued in derogation of its earlier order dated

25.05.2019 passed in WP(C)/3350/2018 as well as the order dated 31.07.2019

passed in WP(C)/4167/2017, inasmuch as, in the earlier orders, the Court

directed that the appellants/petitioners be intimated the precise deficiency

found against each of them by the concerned Scrutiny committee, however,

Page No.# 33/53

no such deficiency were highlighted in the subsequent show cause notices,

based on which they were removed from services.

19. Subsequently, in February 2020, fresh show cause notices were issued

asking them to furnish the following

i. The copy of the advertisement seeking applications,

ii. Call letters issued to them for appearing before the interview

board,

iii. Copy of the select list.

iv. Copy of the original appointment letters.

v. Copy of SIU (Finance Department) approval for drawl of pay and

allowances.

20. The petitioners filed similar replies to the show-cause notices and

maintained that the documents mentioned at Sl. No. i, ii, and iii are not

available with them; they are in the Government record, as these are official

documents and ought to be maintained by the competent authorities. As

regards SIU approvals, they took a stand that the requirement of SIU approval

is for drawing of pay and allowances, and the same are not expected to be

in the possession of the notice; however, payment of regular salary presumes

that all necessary approvals were there, otherwise, the competent authorities

could not have released their salaries regularly.

21. Thereafter, by separate but identical orders issued in February 2020,

the appellants were removed from their services, the reply filed by the

appellants being found unsatisfactory.

22. Such removal orders were challenged before the learned Single

Judge, which was negated and hence these appeals.

Page No.# 34/53

23. Mr. Goswami and Mr. R. Sarma, learned Senior counsels, argue that

the appointment of the appellants at best can be termed as irregular, not fake

or illegal appointments. According to them, the appellants were appointed to

substantive posts through a valid selection process conducted in full public

view. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants'

appointments may be irregular, but are certainly not illegal or fake. In support,

they rely on the determinations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siraj

Ahmed –Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 480,

Vinod Kumar –Vs- Union of India reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, and Pawan

Kumar Tiwary –Vs- Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas

Nigam Limited and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1751.

24. As regards the lack of SIU approval, it is argued that, under the

Notification dated 04.07.2005, the requirement for SIU approval took effect

from 21.07.2005. Therefore, such an office memorandum did not exist when the

selection process commenced.

25. Alternatively, it is argued that there is no material to suggest that the

SIU had at any point in time opined that the posts to which the appellants were

appointed are not required and should be abolished.

26. As regards the authority of the Joint Director of Health Services to

issue advertisement and make appointments, it is argued that there is no

specific rule indicating that advertisement cannot be issued by the Joint

Director of Health Services inasmuch as according to them, it is an admitted

position that in terms of Section 2(a) of the Assam Public Services (Direct

Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997, the Joint Director is the

appointing authority.

27. It is further contended that there is no whisper or allegation of any

wrongdoing, unfair practice or fraudulent activity committed by any of the

Page No.# 35/53

candidates/appellants, and as such, the selection was not vitiated by

malpractice. There was also no challenge to such a selection process by any

unsuccessful candidates alleging corrupt practice, etc.

28. According to the learned Senior counsels for the appellants, the

appellants had been serving for almost 14 years until their services were

terminated in 2019 & 2020; they have been drawing regular salaries ever since

their initial appointments, without any break, until their termination, which itself

indicates that their appointments were regular and above board. Removal

from service at this stage will cause immense financial and emotional hardship

for them, argue the Senior counsels.

29. According to them, even otherwise under Rule 14 of the Assam

Public Services (Direct Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997

(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1997), the State is empowered to relax the

stipulation of the Rules in appropriate cases.

30. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, neither

the show cause notice nor the impugned termination order is based on the

alleged non-compliance of the Rules, 1997.

31. According to them, the alleged violation of the Rules, 1997, in the

matter of appointments of appellants, and that the appointments were made

during a period when fresh appointments were banned, was for the first time

set up by the State in the writ proceeding, that too by an additional affidavit

before the learned Single Judge, which is not permissible under law. In support,

reliance on the determination made in Mohinder Singh Gill –Vs- Chief Election

Commissioner, reported in [(1978) 1 SCC 405], is placed.

32. In conclusion, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants argues

that the enquiry held against the appellants was most perfunctory, the show-

cause notices themselves were vague, and therefore, there is a gross violation

Page No.# 36/53

of the principles of natural justice. The screening committee report, which

formed the basis for declaring the appellants’ appointment illegal, was not

furnished to the appellants, resulting in serious prejudice to their defence and

thus vitiating the termination. The termination orders reflect that the

respondents did not consider the appellants' reply. Therefore, it is a clear case

of non-consideration of the relevant materials and non-application of the mind

by the respondent authorities.

33. Mr. Dakh learned Sr. counsel while adopting the arguments

advanced as recorded hereinabove and placing reliance on Jaggo Vs. Union

of India and Ors. [ (2023) SCC Online SC 3826], Dharam Sing and Ors. Vs. State

of U.P. & Anr. [2025 INSC 998] & Shripal and Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad

[2025 INSC 144] has further contended that once services of the appellants

stood regularised against substantive vacancies, such regularisation having

remained unquestioned for nearly a decade, the State could not have

terminated them without first setting aside the orders of regularisation in

accordance with law. It is urged that the termination is vitiated by violation of

Article 311 of the Constitution of India, non-disclosure of the screening

committee report, non-consideration of the replies submitted by the

appellants, and gross breach of the principle of natural justice. In addition, he

contends that otherwise, due to long service against substantive vacancies,

the appellants are entitled to regularisation.

34. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General,

defending the impugned judgment as well as the impugned action of

termination, argues that the appellants were appointed by the Joint Directors

of Health Services, Goalpara, Dibrugarh and Sivasagar, in the year 2005 in

blatant violation of the Rules 1997. Such appointments were made without

having prior approval of the Director of Health Services, Assam who is the

Page No.# 37/53

appointing authority and the Head of the Department; without the approval of

the State Level Empowered Committee, which was mandatorily required

during the period of initiation of selection process; without publishing the

advertisement in newspaper for wide publication and above that

appointments were made, during a period when ban on appointment was

imposed by the Government in Health and Family Welfare Department barring

issuance of any kind of appointment orders.

35. The learned Additional Advocate General contends that by office

memorandum dated 6-12-1999, the State Level Empowered Committee was

constituted to examine the requirement of actual number of staff based on

workload in each department office and determine the shortage surplus of

government employee in any department as well as to examine the posts

which cannot be kept vacant and cannot be manned by redeployment and

to recommend to fill up the posts.

36. The State notification categorically mandated that the existing

vacant posts, including those that may fall vacant in the future, shall not be

filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion without prior approval of

the State-Level Empowered Committee. However, in the instant cases, the

Joint Director of Health Services Goalpara and Dibrugarh, initiated the

selection process in the years 2004 and 2005 without prior approval of the

State-Level Empowered Committee and therefore, such appointments are

illegal and void ab initio, argues Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate

General, Assam.

37. To further substantiate his argument, learned Advocate General

contends that by a communication dated 11-04-2002, the Government in

Health Department instructed the Director of Health Services, Assam not to

issue any kind of appointment order until further order even in case against

Page No.# 38/53

which permission of State Level Empowered Committee and approval of the

Minister of Health and Family Welfare Department had been obtained and

thereby, imposed a complete ban on appointment by the Director of Health

Services, Assam who is the appointing authority of Grade-III and Grade-IV staff

of the district establishments.

38. He cites Rule 3 and Rule 2 (a) of the Rules 1997, which define the

appointing authority as the authority to whom the power of appointment is

delegated. In the instant cases, no such power to conduct a recruitment

process and to appoint the appellants in Grade-IV was delegated to the Joint

Director of Health Services, Goalpara, Dibrugarh and Sivasagar by the Director

of Health Services, Assam. Therefore, the entire selection was without sanction

or authority and without jurisdiction; consequently, it is a nullity in the eyes of

the law.

39. Beyond that, the Selection Committee, as prescribed under Rule 5 of

the Rules 1997, also did not adhere to. Instead of a mandated five-member

selection committee, a three-member committee was constituted. Thus, the

selection committee itself disregards the rules, and such a selection is illegal.

40. According to him, such a selection process was also in derogation of

Rule 5(3) of the Rules 1997 which mandates notifying minimum essential

qualification for direct recruitment to the post, age limit of the candidates,

minimum experience etc. and to declare whether any written test, typing test,

interview shall be held and if so maximum marks for the same is required to be

notified and such a selection under Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1997 is to be made

on the basis of merit. According to the learned Additional Advocate General,

no such instruction was sought from the Director of Health Services, Assam, by

the concerned Joint Directors of Health Services, and the Joint Directors of

Health Services went ahead with the selection. Therefore, such a selection is

Page No.# 39/53

illegal.

41. In terms of the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service

Rules 1973, the appointing authority is the Head of the Department and in the

cases, therefore the Director of Health Services, Assam is the appointing

authority and not the Joint Director of Health Services, and thus, the

appointments were issued without jurisdiction, more particularly, in absence of

any delegation of power to the Joint Director by the Director. Although such

appointments were made after 25-01-2005 and the New Pension Rules are

applicable, this essential condition of service was not incorporated in the

appointment orders.

42. According to him, the appellants were provided ample

opportunities to prove the genuineness of their appointments. However, they

had miserably failed to produce the required documents. Therefore, their

termination cannot be altered.

43. In support, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, places

reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in the Union of India

–Vs- Raghuwar Pal Singh reported in 2018-15 SCC 463, A. Umarani –Vs- Co-

operative Society reported in 2004-07 SCC 112, State of Bihar –Vs- Upendra

Narayan Singh, reported in 2009-05 SCC 65,. National Fertiliser Limited –Vs-

Somvir Singh reported in 2006-05 SCC 493, State of Karnataka –Vs- Uma Devi

reported in 2006-04 SCC 1, State of Karnataka –Vs- ML Kesari reported in 2010-

09 SCC 247, State of Orissa and another –Vs- Mamata Mohanty reported in

2011-03 SCC 436, Post Master General, Kolkata, -Vs- Tutu Das (Dutta), reported

in 2007-05 SCC 317.

44. As regards the case of appellants in WA No. 144/2024, he adds that

the appellants were never appointed pursuant to a valid selection process as

contemplated under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and that their

Page No.# 40/53

initial engagement was purely ad-hoc or casual; and that subsequent

regularisation was affected by authorities lacking competence under Service

Rules. It is submitted that regularisation cannot cure an illegal entry into

service, and reliance is placed on the principles enunciated in Uma Devi

(supra).

45. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties.

46. The fulcrum of the State’s argument is that the appointments of the

appellants are rendered void ab initio on account of the infraction of the

Rules, 1997, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. According to the State, the Joint Directors of Health Services lack the

authority to initiate recruitment, advertise vacancies, constitute the selection

committee, and issue appointment orders, all such powers being vested

exclusively with the Director of Health Services, Assam.

47. Though such a submission is attractive at first blush, does not

withstand close scrutiny either on the facts or in law.

48. A plain reading of Section 2(a) of the Rules, 1997, defines

“Appointing Authority” as the authority to whom the power of appointment is

delegated. The Rules themselves do not designate a specific officer by

nomenclature as the appointing authority for Class-IV posts across

departments. The determination of the appointing authority is thus dependent

on the administrative structure of the department and the delegation of

power thereunder. In the present cases, it is not the State’s case that the Joint

Directors were private or extraneous authority. They are functionaries who

head district establishments of the Health Department, exercising

administrative control over the sanctioned posts within their respective

jurisdictions. In absence of any statutory provision or executive instruction in

Page No.# 41/53

this regard expressly prohibiting the Joint Director from acting as Appointing

Authority, the reliance of certain communications between the Director and

the Joint Directors asking the Joint Directors to initiate selection process with

approval from the government that too in respect of some other cases, the

assertion that the Director alone could have exercised such power cannot, by

itself, render the entire recruitment process nonest, more particularly, when

the salaries and other benefits are paid by the Director and the State for more

than 14 years.

49. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997, amongst other mandates that recruitment

shall be made on the basis of the recommendation of a selection committee

and that the Appointing Authority shall advertise the vacancies. The factual

position, which remains undisputed, is that the vacancies were advertised: by

newspaper advertisement in the District of Goalpara and by notice of

selection in Dibrugarh, seeking applications from eligible candidates, and that

a selection process was undertaken. Select lists were prepared and published.

In our view, these steps satisfy the substantive requirement of Rule 4, namely,

transparency and an opportunity for all eligible candidates. The Rules do not

elevate the mode of publication into an inflexible condition whose breach

would nullify the entire process, particularly when the recruitment was

conducted under full Public gage and no allegation has been made that the

eligible candidates were excluded or that the process was manipulated.

50. Similarly, Rule 5 of the Rules, 1997, prescribes the composition of the

selection committee. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that the

selection committee constituted was so fundamentally in contrast with Rule 5

as to strike at the root of the process, except that, instead of a larger selection

committee prescribed, the committee constituted a smaller number. The plea

of improper constitution has been raised belatedly, long after the appellants

Page No.# 42/53

had entered service and the State treated them as regular employees for 14

years. Such ground was also not indicated in any of the show-cause notices.

51. In service jurisprudence, not every deviation from a procedural

prescription amounts to illegality. A distinction must be maintained between a

breach that goes to the jurisdiction and one that is curable or irregular. Unless

the deviation results in unequal opportunity, it cannot be elevated to a

constitutional infirmity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,

more so in a factual background like the present one.

52. We have also carefully examined the decisions on which the

learned Additional Advocate General relied.

53. In A. Umarani (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with

appointments made outside the statutory scheme, without any selection

process, secured through manipulation and abuse of power. The Apex Court

held that such backdoor appointments cannot be regularised. The said

decision has no application to the present cases, where appointments were

made pursuant to public advertisement, though defective according to the

State, and admittedly, there is no allegation of fraud or manipulation.

54. In Raghuwar Pal Singh (Supra) and National Fertiliser Limited (Supra),

the appointments were found to be wholly illegal, having been made in

patent violation of statutory provisions, and the appointees were unable to

establish any lawful entry into service.

55. These decisions reiterate the settled principle that the Courts cannot

perpetuate illegality. However, they do not lay down that long-served

employees appointed through an advertised process, without an allegation of

fraud, can be removed after decades, for administrative lapses attributable to

the employer and its agent.

Page No.# 43/53

56. The decision in Upendra Narayan Singh (supra) concerned peculiar

facts in which appointments were made in contravention of express

constitutional and statutory prohibitions, and the Court emphasised that

sympathy cannot override the rule of law. In the present cases, however, the

appellants were appointed against existing posts and allowed to continue for

years with tacit approval of the State, thereby distinguishing the factual and

legal context.

57. In Postmaster General Vs. Tutu Das (Supra) and Mamata Mohanty

(Supra), the Supreme Court addressed the cases involving fraudulent and

fabricated appointments, including forged documents and false claims. The

ratio of those decisions is that fraud vitiates everything. Admittedly, in the

present cases, there is no allegation of fraud, forgery or impersonation against

the appellants, rendering those authorities inapplicable.

58. The reliance placed on Uma Devi (Supra) must be understood in its

full constitutional setting. The Constitution Bench was addressing a

phenomenon that threatened the integrity of public employment itself; the

proliferation of ad-hoc, temporary, and backdoor appointments as a

substitute for regular recruitment. The judgment is animated by the need to

restore fidelity to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by ensuring that

public posts are filled through an open, competitive process. At the same

time, the Court was acutely conscious that a rigid application of principles

could produce grave injustice in individual cases. It, therefore, drew a vital

distinction between appointments that are illegal in the sense of being

fundamentally contrary to the constitutional scheme and appointments that

are irregular due to deviations in procedure. The former, the Court held,

cannot be protected; the latter may, depending on circumstances, invite

equitable consideration.

Page No.# 44/53

59. This nuanced understanding was explicated and reinforced in M. L.

Kesari (Supra), where the Supreme Court clarified that Uma Devi does not

maintain that the uprooting of employees who have served for long periods in

a sanctioned post is without taint or fraud.

60. The subsequent decisions in Jaggo (supra), Yashpal (supra), and

Dharambir (supra) have consistently reiterated that Uma Devi is not a blunt

instrument to be used for indiscriminate termination, but a constitutional

corrective aimed at preventing future illegality while addressing past

irregularities with measured fairness.

61. To invoke Uma Devi (supra) in the present cases without engaging

with these clarifications would amount to a misreading of the judgment and

abdication of judicial responsibility.

62. We are therefore of the view that none of the aforesaid decisions

relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General advances the case

of the State on the facts before us. Constitutional adjudication does not

proceed on the basis of levels but rather on careful identification of the legal

principle a precedent establishes.

63. It is now trite that a judgment is an authority for what it decides and

not for what it may seem to flow from it logically. The binding force of

precedent inheres in its ratio, and the ratio itself is inseparable from the factual

matrix in which the question arose.

64. The decision cited on behalf of the state arises from a consistent

factual pattern, i.e. appointment secured without any open or transparent

process, often through patronage, manipulation or outright fraud, thereby

striking at the root of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is in that

context that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to extend equitable

protection. To transpose those holdings into the present cases would be to

Page No.# 45/53

abstract principle from context and to apply it in a manner never intended.

65. In the present cases, the appellants did not enter into service

through a concealed or surreptitious route.

66. Their entry resulted from a recruitment process initiated by the State

itself. Advertisements were issued in the public domain, applications were

invited, selections were held, appointment orders were issued, and the

appellants were inducted into service. From that point onwards, the State

treated the appellants as members of its workforce, assigned them duties

essential to the functioning of public health institutions, and paid them salaries

from the government fund. This conduct of the State continued

uninterruptedly for nearly 14 years. In public law, such sustained conduct is not

devoid of normative significance. It generates a legitimate expectation that

the engagement is lawful and stable, and it simultaneously imposes a

corresponding obligation on the State to act fairly, reasonably, consistently

and non-arbitrarily.

67. Viewed thus, the appointments of the appellants cannot be

characterised as void ab initio. At the highest, they suffer from procedural

irregularities attributable solely to the employer. Such irregularity does not

erase the reality of long and continuous service rendered, nor does it

neutralise the equities that have crystallised over time.

68. Public law does not sanction a course that the State may approve

for years and then reprobate when it finds administrative convenience in

doing so. The principle that the State cannot take advantage of its own

wrong is not a mere equitable slogan. It is a constitutional limitation on

arbitrary state action.

69. Even apart from the substantive legality of the appointments, the

process culminating in termination is vitiated on the grounds that go to the

Page No.# 46/53

root of procedural fairness.

70. Repeated judicial directions mandating disclosure of the Scrutiny

Committee Report and communication of precise deficiencies were

disregarded. The show cause notices were vague, generic and non-specific,

rendering the opportunity to respond illusory rather than real.

71. The termination orders do not disclose any reasoned consideration

of the explanations offered by the appellants. Where an administrative action

entails severe civil consequences, compliance with principles of natural justice

is not a matter of form but of substance. Their breach invalidates the action

irrespective of the merit of the underlying allegations.

72. Further, any termination based on a screening or verification exercise

must scrupulously adhere to the requirements of fairness, transparency, and

reasoned decision-making. Failure to do so vitiates the action.

73. The infirmities now relied upon by the State relate to the internal

decision-making structure of the administration, mainly whether prior approval

from a higher authority was obtained, whether a selection committee was

properly constituted, whether interdepartmental concurrence was secured,

and whether certain instructions from higher authorities were meticulously

followed. These are matters that lie entirely within the employer's exclusive

domain.

74. A candidate seeking appointment to a Grade-IV post cannot be

imputed with either knowledge of, or responsibility for, compliance with such

internal administrative protocols. The constitutional guarantee of equality does

not require an employee to bear the consequences of administrative failure,

particularly when the State itself has acquiesced in and benefited from

arrangements over a long period of time.

Page No.# 47/53

75. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General,

founded on a ban on appointments or absence of prior approval, must also

be examined from this perspective.

76. The argument that appointments were made during a ban period or

without prior approval, including SIU concurrence, stands even on a weaker

footing.

77. A ban on recruitment or an internal requirement of prior approval is

an instruction intended to regulate administrative discretion. It does not

operate as a statutory prohibition rendering every appointment made in

breach thereof a nullity in the eyes of the law. Where the administration itself

proceeds to make appointments, posts employees against sanctioned

vacancies and releases their salaries year after year, the State cannot, after

prolonged acquisition turn around and contend that the appointments were

void from inception. Such an approach would permit the State to benefit from

its own wrong and would offend the principle of non-arbitrariness that

permeates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

78. Executive instructions imposing restrictions on recruitment are

intended to regulate administrative discretion. They are not designed to

operate as latent traps that can be sprung upon unsuspecting employees

decades later, with the State, through its office, choosing to disregard or

misapply such instructions and then proceeding to make appointments. The

fault lies squarely with the administration.

79. Allowing the State to retrospectively invalidate such appointments

after extracting years of service would be antithetical to fairness and would

erode public confidence in the stability of public employment. Interestingly, to

a pointed query of ours, Mr. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General,

candidly admits that no action against the erring officials has been initiated.

Page No.# 48/53

80. Coming to the case of the appellants in WA 144/2024, the posts

against which the appellants were engaged admittedly existed; the

appellants were eligible; their engagement and subsequent regularisation

were affected by the Department itself and for nearly two decades, the State

treated them as part of the regular workforce by paying regular salaries and

extracting service. The reliance placed on Uma Devi (supra) is misplaced. Uma

Devi was never intended to be a charter for retrospective invalidation of long-

standing regularisation.

81. The law on regularisation is well settled. In Uma Devi, the constitution

bench held that irregular or illegal appointments made contrary to

recruitment rules cannot be regularised merely by reason of long service,

however, in the State of Karnataka (supra), it was clarified that where the

appointment was irregular, not illegal, and the employee has served

continuously for over 10 years against a sanctioned or duly recognised post,

the regularisation may be considered as a one-time measure.

82. The Hon’ble Apex Court’s approach to this issue has further evolved

in recent years through the judgment in Dharam Singh (supra), where it was

held that when a public institution depends, day after day, on the same

hands to perform a permanent task, equity demands that those tasks are

placed on a sanctioned post and those workers are treated with fairness and

dignity. The Hon’ble Apex Court further cautioned that a generic plea of

financial constraints cannot justify continued ad-hocism, emphasising that the

State cannot balance its budget on the back of daily wage workers.

83. Again in Shripal (supra), it was held that the landmark judgment of

Uma Devi, cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagement

persisting for years. The Court recognised that, where employees have

rendered long, continuous service in perennial work, the temporary or daily-

Page No.# 49/53

wage nature of the work cannot defeat their substantive right to fair

treatment.

84. Viewed from the aforesaid settled proposition of law, this Court finds

force in the arguments of Mr. Dakh, learned Sr. Counsel, inasmuch as, it is an

admitted position that the appellants were engaged against permanent

vacancies to perform permanent task and therefore, such regularisation

already done by the employers themselves could not have been nullified by

way of the action impugned in the writ petitions.

85. Now, let this Court deal with the authorities relied on by the learned

Senior counsel for the appellants. The Apex Court's decision in Siraj Ahmad

(supra) draws a clear and constitutionally significant distinction between

appointments that are illegal at inception and those that suffer from

procedural irregularities attributable to the employee. The Court held that

where an employee enters service through a process initiated by the State, for

a sanctioned post, and continues for many years without any allegation of

fraud, manipulation, or misrepresentation, the appointment cannot be

retrospectively declared void merely because certain procedural

requirements were not strictly complied with. The Court emphasised that the

doctrine of “void ab initio” cannot be mechanically applied to undo

appointments after prolonged acquiescence by the State, particularly when

the employees had no role in alleged irregularities. The principle squarely

applies to the present cases, where the appellants were appointed pursuant

to advertisement notices issued by the Department, selected through a

process conducted under official authority and thereafter, continued in

service for nearly 14 years with full knowledge and approval of the State.

86. In Siraj Ahmad (supra), the Supreme Court further underscored that

administrative lapses or errors in the constitution of selection bodies or in

Page No.# 50/53

adherence to executive instructions cannot be visited upon employees who

had neither control over nor knowledge of such internal processes. The Court

cautioned that permitting the State to invalidate appointments after years of

service on such grounds would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India by introducing arbitrariness at the stage of termination, even if entry to

service was not perfectly aligned with every procedural prescription. The ratio

thus protects employees at the lower rung of the service from being

scapegoated for the administration's failure, a consideration of particular

relevance in the present cases involving Grade-IV employees.

87. The judgment in Vinod Kumar (supra) further strengthens this line of

reasoning by affirming that long and uninterrupted service pursuant to an

appointment made by the competent governmental set-up gives rise to a

legitimate expectation of continuity, which cannot be defeated except for

compelling and legally sustainable reasons. The Supreme Court reiterated

that where the State has, over a substantial period, treated the appointment

as valid by assigning duties, granting benefits and paying regular salaries, it is

not open to the employer to later contend that the appointment was a nullity

unless the appointment was tainted by fraud or was made in complete

disregard of the constitutional scheme. The Court observed that the rule of

law demands consistency in the State’s action, and the prolonged

acceptance of employees' service operates as a strong indicator that the

appointment was not perceived as fundamentally illegal at the time it was

made.

88. In Vinod Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court also clarified that

violation of internal guidelines, executive instructions, or approval mechanisms,

however mandatory, they may be for administration, does not automatically

render the appointment illegal vis-à-vis the employee. The Court held that

Page No.# 51/53

such requirements are intended to discipline the administration, not to serve as

a hidden condition precedent that can be invoked retrospectively to the

detriment of employees. This reasoning directly addresses the state’s

contention in the present cases regarding the absence of an SIU approval, the

appointment during a ban period, and the alleged lack of authority of the

Joint Directors, all of which lie within the employer's administrative domain.

89. The recent decision in Pawan Kr. Tiwary (supra) reaffirms and

consolidates the jurisdiction on protecting long-serving employees appointed

through a transparent process. The Supreme Court held that where an

employee has served for a considerable period in a sanctioned post, and the

appointment was not secured by fraud, the employer cannot invoke

technical or procedural defects decades later to terminate the employee's

service. The Court observed that the equities in such cases decisively tilt in

favour of the employee, particularly when the employer has derived

continuous benefit from the employee’s service, and no competing rights of

third parties are shown to be affected.

90. In Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court cautioned

against an over-expensive reading of Uma Devi (supra) and reiterated that

Uma Devi does not mandate the wholesale invalidation of all appointments

suffering from procedural defects. The Court reiterated that the constitutional

concern in Uma Devi was to prevent backdoor entries and a parallel

recruitment system, and not to push employees who enter service through an

open process and serve for long years. This clarification directly supports the

appellants' case as their appointments were neither clandestine nor backdoor

but were the result of a recruitment exercise initiated by the State authorities,

though the State contends that there were irregularities.

91. To summarise, the constitutional position that thus emerges is clear

Page No.# 52/53

and admits of little ambiguity. Where appointments to public posts are made

pursuant to public advertisements and the recruitment process initiated by the

State against existing vacancies, and the appointees have served for long

and uninterrupted periods without any allegation of fraud or

misrepresentation, such appointments cannot be treated as nullities merely on

account of administrative or procedural lapses attributable to the employer.

After the extraction of a prolonged service, the State is constitutionally

restrained from undoing its own acts to the grave detriment of the employees

situated at the lowest ranks of service, more particularly, when there is no

allegation of fraud or manipulation and admittedly, appointments were

made after a selection process.

92. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the action of the

State Government and the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

93. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The common judgment and

order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned single judge is interfered with.

The termination orders issued against the appellants are quashed.

94. The appellants shall be reinstated in service with continuity of service

for all notional purposes, including seniority and pensionery benefits as per

Rules. However, balancing the equities and bearing in mind the public

exchequer, the appellants shall not be entitled to back wages for the

interregnum period.

95. The respondent shall give effect to this judgment within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

There shall be no order as to cost.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Page No.# 53/53

Comparing Assistant