WP(C) 4339/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.C. Sa ikia, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos . 1,3,4 and 5. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel representing r espondent No. 2. None appears for the private respondent No. 6 to 12 in spite o f notice being served on them. The petitioner claims that he was working in Grad e IV post from time to time on temporarily basis under the Co-operation Departme nt and he has been seeking appointment on regular basis in the aforesaid departm ent against the existing vacancies. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 6 to 12, who hav e also been working temporarily on time to time basis in the said department, ha ve been regularized by the respondent No. 4 vide order contained under memo No. DCE-3/95/205 (A) dated 24.4.2007, (Annexure-P/27 series to the writ petition) as Process Server Peon in Grade IV. The aforesaid appointment/ regularization has been made pursuant to letter No. COOP-381/2002/175 (A) dtd. 05.04. 2007 and let ter No. CE-31/2003/112 dtd. 12.04.2007 issued by the respondent Registrar. In th e aforesaid impugned orders there is no mention that the appointment orders hav e been issued on the basis of selection made by any selection committee as per t he existing rules or established procedure for recruitment. Mr. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court d id not issue any direction fact that the petitioners should be appointed without resorting to recruitment process and as such the impugned order is not sustaina ble under the law. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondent No. 1 wherein it is found that the contention made by the petitioners have not been co ntroverted or denied. The private respondents in spite of notice being served upon them have n ot filed any counter affidavit in this matter. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, although the private responden ts have been appointed temporarily, materials placed before this Court would est ablish that the private respondents were appointed without any selection proces s. The established law is that any appointment made on temporary basis without r esorting to selection process can not be allowed to sustain and accordingly the aforesaid impugned appointment orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. Th ey are accordingly set aside and quashed. However, considering the fact that the private respondents are working i n the respective posts on the basis of the impugned appointment order, the respo ndent authorities may allow them to continue in the said post till the regular a ppointments are made after due advertisement and conducting interview. Needless to say that the entire process to recruit the aforesaid post should be complet ed within a period of 3 (three) months. The writ petition is disposed of.