WP(C) 5552/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA All the writ petitions pertain to the same issue of legality or otherwis e of dispensation of service of the petitioners on ground of being unsuitable ha ve been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and ord er. The petitioners were appointed as Assam Tea Plantation Security Force (A TPSF) personnel by various orders issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Office of the Director General Civil Defence and Commandant. They are aggrieved by the ord er dated 15.12.08 issued by the Commandant, ATPSF by which a declaration has bee n made that the security personnel named in the order have been found unsuitable by the Board which was constituted for absorption of the Security personnel i n Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF). By the said order such unsuccessful ca ndidates have been directed to deposit arms and ammunition and kits etc. earlier issued to them. According to the petitioners they having been appointed as ATPSF personn el after having found suitable, their services could not have been dispensed wit h without. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been co ntended that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis initially for a period of three years on daily wage basis and in fact they continued on that ba sis till their cases were considered for absorption in the AISF. As per the affi davit, there is no service rule governing the service conditions of the petition ers and that the petitioners were also not regular employees as is understood i n the common parlance. The petitioners are neither recognised as temporary nor a s permanent Govt. employees. The ATPSF was abolished w.e.f. 15.12.08 and was rec onstructed as the 1st and 2nd AISF (Assam Central Security Force) by the Govt. o f Assam. Vide Govt. notification dated 22.04.08. Two new Battalions under the na me and style 1st and 2nd AISF were raised to absorb the eligible and suitable A TPSF personnel under permanent structure for which a selection Board was constit uted vide notification dated 22.04.08. The aforesaid Board conducted the suitability test at different venues d uring the period from 6th May to 8th June, 2008. As per the affidavit, the Board had assessed the performance of all together 2279 ATPSF personnel including 135 Ex-servicemen taking into consideration their age, length of service and other yardsticks and parameters laid down in that regard. On completion of the suitabi lity test, the Board found that out of 135 Ex-servicemen, 18 were unsuitable and out of 2144 direct recruitment of ATPSF personnel, 12 were found unsuitable for appointment in the Battalion. Those who were found unsuitable have been discha rged from deployment w.e.f. 15.12.08. In the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 5552/08, it is the stand of the re spondents that seven petitioners had appeared in the selection test, but failed in the physical test and thus could not be absorbed in AISF. According to Ms. R . Chokraborty, learned State counsel, same is the case with other petitioners. S he submits that as none of the petitioners have been found suitable for absorpti on, they cannot be absorbed and consequently had to be released from their contr actual service under ATPSF which has incidentally been abolished with reconstruc ting of AISF. The petitioners have not denied the aforesaid stand of the official resp ondents in their counter affidavit. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that the petitioners after rendering so many years under the respondents, ought to have been retained at least in some other jobs, if not as security personnel. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties as well as the materials on record. From the very engagement of the petiti oners as ATPSF personnel, it appears that they were appointed on daily wage basi s. They continued on that basis. Eventually, ATPSF was abolished with introducti on/restructuring a unit of AISF. Suitability of the existing personnel was judge d by the duly constituted Board and judging the suitability and eligibility, it was found that the petitioners were not suitable for continuation and/or absorp tion in the AISF. That being the position, their temporary services were dispens ed with. In such circumstances having regard to the service condition of the pet itioners, it cannot be said to be a case of violation of Article 311 of the Cons titution of India. As revealed in the counter affidavit, all together 30 ATPSF were found u nsuitable for absorption as AISF personnel. However, their absorption in some ot her posts cannot be ruled out. They may not be fit for security service, but ma y be fit for some other jobs/services. Having regard to the long length of servi ce rendered by each one of them, I am of the considered opinion that the respond ents may give a fresh look for their engagement in some other jobs, if available and found feasible. In view of the above, while not interfering with the impugned order of n on-absorption of the petitioner as AISF personnel, the writ petitions are dispo sed of directing the respondents to dispassionately consider the case of the pet itioners for their engagement in some other jobs, if available and the petitione rs are found suitable. In case of providing such alternative employment, same wi ll provide the petitioners with the much needed mooring to them with their respe ctive families. The matter is left open to the discretion of the respondents whi ch they will carry out objectively and taking into account the requirement of AI SF. Writ petitions are disposed of.