WA 314/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CR SARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) AMITAVA ROY , J In challenge is the judgment and order dated 17.03.2004, passed in a series of w rit petitions, the lead case being WP(C) No.3996/2001, allowing the same. Thereb y the orders dated 16.10.2000 terminating the services of the private respondent s herein as Extension Officer in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Ass am, were interfered with. 02. We have heard Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr . PS Deka, learned State Counsel for the official respondents and Mr. M Nath, le arned counsel for the private respondents (except respondent No. 3). 03. The genesis of the present controversy lies in the advertisement dated 30.11.1993, issued by the Director of Industries, Assam, Guwahati, solici ting candidature for appointments to the post of Extension Officer (Industries)/ Technical Assistant/Field Enumerator. The instant appeal as above, pertains only to the post of Extension Officer (Industries) Kamrup, Assam. The present appell ant, the private respondents and others responded to the advertisement and follo wing a selection, a select list dated 22.03.1995 was published empanelling 150 c andidates. Alleging gross illegalities vitiating the said selection, a batch of writ petitions was filed, the lead case being CR No. 128/1996. The present appel lant was one of the writ petitioners therein. 04. The State respondents, in their affidavit conceded the irregular ities in the selection and pleaded to the extent that orders of appointment to m any such candidates had, in fact not been issued officially. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 01.09.1997 whil e noticing the aforementioned stand of the State respondents disposed of the wri t petition with a direction for issuance of a fresh advertisement. The official respondents, however, were directed to issue notices to the persons already appo inted on the basis of such selection, intimating them that they had been appoint ed/recruited without being appropriately and duly selected calling for the cance llation of their appointments. This judgment was carried in appeal by the person s affected, and in Writ Appeal No. 544/1997, a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 18.11.1999, while sustaining the judgment and order impugned be fore it, introduced a slight modification requiring thereby that the authority c oncerned would consider the reply to be filed by the appellants without being in fluenced by the observation made by the learned Single Judge. Show cause notices followed thereafter to the persons allegedly illegally appointed on the basis o f the aforementioned selection and eventually, by orders dated 16.10.2000 the se rvices of the private respondents herein were terminated. 05. In the group of writ petitions instituted by the present private respondents, the Director of Industries, Assam, in WP(C) No. 2465/2001, in his affidavit pleaded that pursuant to the judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passe d in the aforementioned writ appeal as well as Writ Appeal No. 549/1997, a sub-c ommittee was constituted to scrutinize the relevant records in connection with t he show cause notices issued to the Extension Officer concerned. According to t his authority, the scrutiny revealed the following: - NAME FINDINGS 1. Bipul Dutta 2. Shri Tapan Saha 3. Shri Bikash Ganguli 4. Anu Samah Failed in the written test. 1. Sri Badrudduja Laskar 2. Shri Jogen Das and 3. Shri Masud Ahmed Laskar Names do not appear in the select list. The answering respondent stated further that on the basis of the report of the sub-committee, it was, directed that 52 such Extension Officer (I ndustries) could only be allowed to continue in service and that the services of others be terminated. 06. In reply to the categorical statement made by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2465/2001 and reiterated by others that it is only they, who are soug ht to be victimized and that the other Extension Officers (Industries) already a ppointed have been allowed to continue were, as such, not denied by the aforemen tioned State authority in the counter. 07. The learned Single Judge upheld the challenge on the following g rounds: i) The show cause notices were cyclostyled and addressed to all the petitioners without disclosing material facts and particulars so as to enable them to meanin gfully reply thereto. ii) The State respondents failed to produce original records, except two photo c opies of the select list containing the names of 150 and 152 candidates to justi fy the impugned order of termination. iii) The official respondents failed to produce the answer script and the mark s heets relatable to the selection to substantiate the validity of the conclusion that the private respondents herein had failed to qualify in the written examina tion or that their names did not appear in the select list. iv) The names of the 7 private respondents figured in both the lists photo copie s whereof had been produced. v) The Private respondents had, meanwhile completed 10 years of unblemished serv ice. vi) The State respondents were as such not opposed to their continuation in serv ice. vii) The materials on record do not demonstrate that except the 11 private respo ndents, the services of others have, similarly been terminated for either having not qualified in the written examination or for absence of their names in the s elect list(s). viii) The approach of the State respondents appeared to be vitiated by bias and extraneous considerations. 08. Mr. Dhar has urged that, as a learned Single Judge of this Court at the first instance, by the judgment and order dated 01.09.1997, rendered amo ngst others in CR No. 128/1996 had adjudged the selection to be illegal and non est in law, a co-ordinate bench could not have proceeded on a different premise and interfered with the orders of termination of the private respondents having been found to be disentitled to continue in service on the basis of an enquiry m ade into the essential facts. While contending that the private respondents’ ple a of having been singled out for termination of their services is not borne out by the records, the learned counsel has urged that continuance of their service would be an abuse of the process of Court besides perpetuating an illegality app arent on the face of the records, the official respondents having pleaded in par ticular that the 7 private respondents referred to in their affidavit have been found to be disqualified to continue in service, the learned Single Judge ought not to have sustained their illegal appointments, he urged. 09. The learned State counsel on being queried by this Court has sub mitted that as he has not been in-charge of the State brief before the learned S ingle Judge, he, presently is not in a position to produce the original records. He however abided by the stand of the Director of Industries, Assam, in his aff idavit. 10. Mr. Nath has argued that the present appellants’ endeavour is a pursuit in pleasure, as meanwhile he has secured appointment in the Home Departm ent of the State. While reiterating that it is the private respondents only who have been sought to be singled out for such unfair treatment, he has urged as we ll that having regard to the letter and spirit of the order dated 01.09.1997, as upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 544 and 549/1997, the sum mary manner in which their services were sought to be terminated is apparently i llegal, arbitrary and whimsical and, therefore, was rightly interfered with by t he learned Single Judge. He has persuasively urged without prejudice to the abov e that, as in the meantime, they have put in more than 15 years of service and h ave raised their families, in equity as well, no interference of the impugned ju dgment and order is warranted. 11. We have extended our thoughtful consideration to the rival plead ings and the arguments advanced. Noticeably, the State respondents in the first round of litigation had conceded illegalities in the selection involved and had indicated their preparedness to initiate a fresh process by issuing a new advert isement. A learned Single Judge of this Court, the above notwithstanding, while permitting the State respondents to launch a fresh process, required them to iss ue notice to the appointees intimating that they were not qualified to continue in service on the basis of an enquiry made to that effect. The learned Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.544/1997, vide its judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 recorded the following closing observations: - We would, however, like to make a slight modification of the order to the exten t that in case the appellants submit their reply to the show cause notice, the a uthority concerned shall consider the reply without being prejudiced by the obse rvations made by the learned Single Judge affecting their cases. In essence, thereby, their Lordships directed the authority to consider the repl y to be submitted by the affected appointees without being prejudiced by the obs ervations made by the learned Single Judge. Show cause notices dated 03.01.2000, addressed to the private respondents bear out that the same were in a particula r format without any individual characteristics singular to the persons concerne d. The impugned orders of termination dated 16.10.2000 also are couched in the s ame language. The private respondents were held to be not qualified in the writt en test for the purpose of appointment on two grounds, namely, i) disqualificati on in the written examination and ii) non-inclusion in the select list. Signific antly, the private respondents’ version on affirmation that except they, the ser vices of none other similarly recruited appointee on the basis of the same selec tion had been interfered with has remained unrefuted. There is no specific denia l of that assertion by the official respondents. That in course of the hearing b efore the learned Single Judge, inspite of repeated insistence the official resp ondents, failed to produce the relevant records of the selection including, inte r alia, the answer scripts and the mark sheets is an irrefutable fact. 12. This assumes importance in view of the factual background, which obligated the authorities concerned to apply themselves to all the relevant fac ts and particulars to be borne out by the contemporaneous records to consider th e reply of the private respondents and to take a decision on their fate. This Co urt having, by the judgment and order dated 18.11.1999, in WA No.544/1997 and 54 9/1997 ordered the official respondents to issue notices to the affected appoint ees and to decide on the issue without being prejudice by the observations beari ng on the validity or otherwise of the selection, in our opinion, it was incumbe nt on them to produce the records so as to endorse the final decision arrived at . They having failed to do so, we are left unconvinced by the plea contrary ther eto taken before us by the appellant seeking thereby to question the tenability of the finding recorded in the impugned judgment and order to this effect. 13. On being queried by us, Mr. Dhar has submitted on instructions t hat the appellant has meanwhile been appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Karimganj and that he has been provi ded to the post of Upper Division Assistant. That the private respondents have b een rendering their services without any break for the last 15 years since their appointment without any complaint by the official respondents against the quali ty of performance has also not been refuted as such. 14. On a totality of the considerations as above, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not, at this distant point of time, i n the particularly facts and circumstances of the case require any interference in the instant appeal. We wish to add that this conclusion of ours is wholly fac t oriented and would not be construed to be a precedent. The appeal, therefore, fails. No costs.