WP(C) 3655/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr SP Das, the lea rned standing counsel for the Employment Department. 2. This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner for c laiming illusive posts of Grade-IV. 3. The facts of the case, as projected, in the writ petition, are that he h ad worked as leave substitute in the Office of the District Employment Exchange, Dhubri, for a period of more than 90 days in the year 1993 and that when his ca se was not considered for regular employment by the respondents authorities, he filed WP(C) No. 2435/2000 before this Court, which, by the order dated 17.05.200 0 disposed of the writ petition by directing the State respondents to consider h is case along with similarly situated candidates giving weightage for the period of service he had rendered to the respondent authorities in the year 1993. 4. Apparently, a selection for regular employment for the posts of Grade-IV was made in the year 2007 when his name was forwarded by the Employment Exchang e and was asked to appear in the Viva-Voce interview for Grade-IV posts. Th e petitioner duly appeared in the Viva-Voce interview and was confident of getti ng selected keeping in mind the past services rendered by him as ordered by this Court. However, to his surprise, the respondents No.4 & 5 were appointed as Cho wkidar and Peon respectively, who have no experience at all, in the Office of th e District Employment Exchange, Dhubri. The specific case of the petitioner is f ound at Paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 of the writ petition which are reproduced below:- 12. That the petitioner begs to state that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were app ointed as Chowkidar and Peon respectively in the office of the DEE, Dhubri thoug h they have no experience at all. As such their appointment without giving weig htage for the period of my service experience in the year 1993 is nothing but a flagrant violation of the direction dated 17.5.2000 issued by this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No. 2435/2000. 13. That the petitioner begs to state that inspite of this specific direction is sued by this Hon’ble Court to give weightage to the past experience of the petit ioner in the case of regular appointment, the respondent authorities ignored the said direction of this Hon’ble court and appointed the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the office of the DEE, Dhubri which is nothing but arbitrary, and whimsical a ction on the part of the respondent authorities and as such the impugned office order dated 7.2.2008 with regard to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. That the petitioner begs to state that he came to know from the reliable sou rce that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have no experience at all. But they were a ppointed by ignoring the experience of the petitioner which he acquired in the y ear 1993 and apart from that his case for appointment has been ignored inspite o f the specific direction of this Hon’ble Court and as such the impugned office o rder dated 7.2.2008 with regard to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are liable to be set and quashed. 5. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has once again approached this Court b y way of this writ petition. The State respondents contested the writ petition a nd filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Though notices were properly served upon the respondents No.4 & 5, there is no representation from these respondents. 6. Against the specific plea made by the petitioner that the direction of t his Court has been flouted by the State respondents in ignoring the past service s rendered by the petitioner, the State respondents have chosen to remain silent in this behalf. The reply of the State respondents to the aforesaid pleadings o f the petitioner is found at Paragraph 6 of their affidavit-in-opposition which is reproduced herein below:- That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 11,12,13 & 14 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to state that the petitioner appeared in t he viva-voce interview for Grade-IV post on 08/06/07 in the Office of the Indust rials Training Institute, Guwahati, but the petitioner was not selected as he co uld not perform well in the viva-voce test and hence the selection committee did not recommend for his regular appointment . 7. It may be recalled that this Court while disposing of WP (C) No. 2435/20 00, had specifically directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade-IV along with similarly sit uated candidates giving weightage to the period of service he had rendered to th e Department in the year 1993. Admittedly, this direction has been lost sight of or deliberately ignored by the State respondents in considering the case of the petitioner together with the case of the private respondents. As the private re spondents have been selected and appointed in contravention of the direction of this Court, their appointments cannot stand. 8. The learned standing counsel for the Employment Exchange Department, how ever, has made a last-ditch effort to save the impugned order by contending that the Director of Employment Exchange or for that matter, other officials of the Employment Department were not aware of the order of this Court and therefore ca nnot be bound by that order. In my judgment, the contention is only to be noted to be summarily rejected for the simple reason that these officials were made p arty respondents in WP(C) No.2435/2000 and were also duly represented by their c ounsel, Mr TC Chutia. 9. As the appointments of the respondents No.4 & 5 have been found to be in contravention of the direction of this Court, the same are liable to be set asi de. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by issuing the following directi ons:- (1) The appointments of the respondents No.4 & 5 to the post of Chowkidar and Pe on respectively are hereby quashed; (2) The State respondents shall undertake fresh exercise to fill up these two po sts by considering the case of the petitioner and the private respondents by giv ing duly weightage to the past services rendered by the petitioner; (3) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from th e date of receipt of this Judgment and Order; (4) If the petitioner can be accommodated by the State respondents to the post o f Chowkidar or Peon, the appointments of the respondents No.4 & 5 need not be se t aside; (5) It is made clear that the services rendered by the private respondents durin g the period of their appointments under challenge in this writ petition shall n ot be taken into account while considering their case; 10. No costs.