WP(C) 3267/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Three Writ Petitioners have joined together to present this Writ Peti tion challenging separate show cause notices dated 09.05.2002 served on them pro posing discontinuance of their service. 2. The Petitioner No.1, Shri Rabin Kalita, and the Petitioner No.2, Shri Chitt a Ranjan Das, were initially appointed as Mali under the Assam State Housing Boa rd (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on a fixed pay of Rs.900.00 (Rupees ni ne hundred) only. The said appointments were made on 28.12.1996. The Petitioner No.3, Shri Pradip Chandra Roy, was appointed similarly as a Sweeper under the Bo ard by an order dated 13.03.1997. As such appointments being for a period of thr ee months, were subsequently extended and, thereafter, by an order dated 31.05.2 000, the petitioners were put on a scale pay. As there was a move to terminate t he petitioners, a Writ Petition, registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2269 of 200 2, was instituted, which, however, was closed by an order dated 08.05.2002 on th e basis of the statement made on behalf of the Board that no action, by way of d iscontinuance of their services, is being contemplated. However, on the very nex t day, by a separate show cause notices dated 09.05.2002, the petitioners were a sked to show cause as to why their services should not be discontinued on the gr ound that the appointments were illegal/irregular and were also made against non -existent posts. Aggrieved, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Board on 02.09.2 002 contending that the appointments of the petitioners were initially made with out any interview and/or selection and the same were purely on adhoc basis for a period of three months and also on a fixed pay. Subsequently, though they were put on a scale pay, the illegality in their initial appointments had not been cu red and as the same had persisted, the Board has no option but to propose discon tinuance of their services for which reason the show cause notices dated 09.05.2 002 were issued. 4. Arguing for the Writ Petitioners, Shri I.Choudhury, learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have been in continuous service since the years 1996 and 1997 respectively and, therefore, though their appointments were made without selection, discontinuance of the same, at this stage, would cause immens e hardship to the petitioners and the members of their families. Shri Choudhury has submitted that keeping in view the long years of service rendered, the equit ies need to be balanced and the present status of the petitioners should be prot ected by the Court by an appropriate order to that effect. 5. On the other hand, Shri Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Board has placed before the Court the stand of the Board, as mentioned in the affidavit filed. To know about the present status of the petitioners, the Court had required an Officer of the Board, conversant with the case, to be personally present. Accordingly, Shri P.K.Sarma, Zonal Housing Officer of the Board, is pr esent. In response to the queries made by the Court, Shri Sarma has submitted th at the petitioners are in employment as on date and are drawing their salaries f rom the fund of the Board. The Court has also been informed that under the relev ant R.O.P. Rules, governing the employees of the Board, there are posts of Sweep er and Malis and it is possible that against such posts that the petitioners hav e been engaged. 6. The petitioners, undoubtedly, have been rendering continuous service fro m the years 1996 and 1997, respectively. The provisions of the ROP Rules placed before the Court would go to show that the stand of the Board that the posts aga inst which the petitioners were appointed/engaged, are non-existent posts, is no t correct. The posts of Mali and Sweeper had been allocated to the Board. While it is correct that the petitioners were appointed without advertising the posts and without holding any selection, such illegalities and/or irregularities ought to have been corrected by the Respondent Board at the earliest possible time an d without allowing the petitioners to complete one and half decades of service. That apart, in the affidavit filed by the Board and in the hearing that has take n place no material has been laid before the Court to show that the performance of duties by the petitioners are in any way unsatisfactory. In the said circumst ances the Court is of the view that disturbing the services of the petitioners, at this stage, will not be justified. However, at the same time, the petitioners must prove that they are fit and eligible to hold the posts in question. 7. Considering the above facts, the Court is of the view that the Housing B oard may constitute a Screening Committee to screen the cases of the petitioners on the basis of their performance and if such performance is found to be satisf actory, the Board will continue to treat the petitioners as regular employees un til such dates that they are entitled to remain service. The Respondent Board wi ll undertake the above exercise and issue formal orders in this regard without a ny delay. 8. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.