WP(C) 2033/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Als o heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents . 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure-7), whereb y the petitioner’s appointment as a Section Assistant made on 31.3.2005 under th e Barpeta Rural Road Division of the Public Works Department was cancelled. The authorities while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner purported to have implemented a judgment of this Court rendered on 27.1.2009 in WP(C) 2647/2006 a nd WP(C) 5332/2005. 3. The petitioner claims that in pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.3.20 05, he offered his candidature for direct recruitment and on the basis of a sele ction made, appointment was given to him on 31.3.2005 to the post of Section Ass istant. From the appointment order it is pointed out that prior approval and cle arance of the State Level Empowered Committee was obtained for appointment of th e petitioner. 4. Since the post of Section Assistant is also filled up by promotion of Mu ster Roll Workers, an erroneous impression was gathered by some of the serving M uster Roll (M.R) Workers that the appointment of the petitioner has resulted in deprival of promotional avenues for the serving M.R. workers. Accordingly writ p etition(s) were filed seeking direction for appointment to the post of Section A ssistant by citing the instances of petitioner (directly recruited) and few othe rs who were promoted to the post of Section Assistant. 5. The concerned Section Assistants including the petitioner were not array ed as parties in the writ proceedings. This Court while disposing of the writ pe tition(s) by its order dated 27.1.2009 directed that if appointments/promotions were given illegally, the authorities may take appropriate decision to remove th e incumbents from office of Section Assistant by affording them adequate opportu nity before such adverse action was taken. 6. The petitioner specifically pleaded that no opportunity was afforded to him before cancelling his appointment. Accordingly the Court wanted the departme ntal counsel to obtain instructions on this aspect of the petitioner’s pleadings . 7. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructi ons given on 26.11.2010 by the Executive Engineer submits that the said officer misread paragraph 15 of the Court’s judgment dated 27.1.2009 and wrongly assumed that hearing was required to be afforded only to the writ petitioners and not t o those, whose services were going to be disturbed on the strength of the Court’ s judgment. From these instruction produced before the Court, it is apparent tha t the impugned cancellation order dated 27.3.2009 was passed without affording a ny hearing to the petitioner, although a specific direction was given to afford such hearing by the Court, in its judgment dated 27.3.2009 in the earlier writ p etition(s). 8. It must also be recorded that the writ petitioners in those 2 cases were serving as Muster Roll Workers who were not competing for a vacancy of Section Assistant filled through direct recruitment and in these circumstances, the canc ellation of the appointment of the petitioner who was directly recruited as Sect ion Assistant, can’t be justified at the instance of serving Muster Roll Workers who are not competitors in the direct recruitment process. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the order of cancellati on of appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-7) cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed in so far as the writ petitioner Samser Ali is c oncerned. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. 10. A copy of the instruction dated 26.11.2010 of the Executive Engineer pro duced by Mr. P.N. Goswami be kept in the case record.