WP(C) 3590/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY (Ranjan Gogoi,J.) Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. S. Dek a, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.4. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver attached to the Additional Sessions Jud ge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi on 26.4.2002. The said appointment, naturally, was on ad hoc basis and for a period of one year. The same, however, was made after due selection. While the petitioner was serving in the aforesaid manner a show c ause notice dated 12.3.2003 was issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi asking the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate ac tion shall not be taken against him for alleged acts of abuse and threat meted o ut to the in-charge of the security guards posted in the residence of the Distri ct Judge. In the show cause notice it was mentioned that the aforesaid incident took place on 01.3.2003. The petitioner showed cause denying all the charges. As the tenure of the petitioner was coming to an end the petitioner sought extensi on of the period of his service which was recommended by the learned Ad hoc Addi tional Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi by a communication dated 6th of May, 2 003. While the matter was so situated, by an order dated 12th May, 2003 the lear ned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, refused to extend the service of the pet itioner and released him from his engagement on the ground that he had trespasse d into the premises of the District Judge in an intoxicated state and further th at the petitioner was not performing his duties satisfactorily. On the very same day i.e. 12th May, 2003, the learned District & Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangal doi, appointed the respondent No.4 in the post in which the petitioner was worki ng. In the said order dated 12th May, 2003 it has been recited that the responde nt No.4 was also duly selected by the interview board. It is in the aforesaid fa cts and circumstances that this writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate relief from the Court. There can be no manner of doubt that the order dated 12th May, 2003, refusing to extend the service of the petitioner and in releasing him is not sustainable in law. This is because the grounds on which the order is passed is beyond the all egations mentioned in the show cause notice dated 12.3.2003 which was replied to by the petitioner. In such a situation the Court will understand that the groun ds and reasons on which the service of the petitioner was dispensed with were ne ver put forward to the petitioner and no opportunity to offer his views in the m atter was afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 12th May, 2003 re leasing the petitioner from service is, therefore, in violation of the principl e of natural justice. It is our further considered view that though the petition er was appointed on ad hoc basis for one year and his services were not extended by the order dated 12th May, 2003 the refusal to grant extension was for specif ic reasons adverse to the petitioner. In such a situation the principles of natu ral justice will apply with full vigour, notwithstanding the nature of the appoi ntment of the writ petitioner. The next question that has to be decided is whether the appointment of the respo ndent No.4 made by the subsequent order dated 12th May, 2003 also impugned in th e writ petition should be interfered with by this Court. A period of over seven years have elapsed in the meantime. Learned counsels for the parties have not be en able to throw any light with regard to the present status of the parties, nam ely whether the petitioner has in the meantime, been employed or whether the res pondent No.4 has been permanently absorbed in any post or continues to serve in the same post on ad hoc basis. Having regard to the efflux of time and the fact that the post in which the petitioner was working must have been occupied either by the Respondent No.4 or by some other person and such persons are in no way r esponsible for their appointment and continuance in service, we are of the view that balancing the various competing interest it would be unjustified to cause a ny interference with the appointment and continuance of the present incumbent in the ad hoc post of Driver in the establishment of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi. The second part of the relief sought for in the writ petition, therefore, is refused. The writ petition, consequently, stands disposed of in the above terms.