Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010261912018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8176/2018 SHAHADAT ALI SARKAR S/O- LATE GIASH UDDIN SARKAR, R/O- VILL BINNACHARA PART-I, P.O- BALADOBA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, TAX DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES ASSAM KAR BHAWAN G S ROAD DISPUR GHY- 06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBRI P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES DHUBRI ZONE P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES DHUBRI P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM PIN- 783301 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRI P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301 7:THE CENTRAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE DHUBRI REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI PIN- 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S ISLAM, MR A HAWARI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TAXES, ADDL. AG,ASSAM (TAXATION),MR B GOGOI,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Finance & Taxation Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and Ms. S. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No. 3. None has appeared for the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to regularize the services rendered by him with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 02-05-1994, when he was for the first time engaged by the respondent authorities in pursuance to his selection for such appointment by the Central Recruitment Committee (CRC). Page No.# 3/7 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in the year 1993 was selected by the CRC, Dhubri for appointment against Gr-IV posts available in various Government establishments within the district of Dhubri. It is projected that the name of the petitioner was placed in Sl. No. 16 of the list so prepared of the candidates who were selected for such appointment by the CRC. While the appointments were being made from the said list against a regular sanctioned vacant post, the name of the petitioner, herein, was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to the Superintendent of Taxes (General), Dhubri requiring consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment against a post reserved for Schedule Tribe (Hills) [ST(H)] community candidates subject to de-reservation and after re- advertisement against the post likely to fall vacant as per rules. The Superintendent of Taxes on receipt of the said recommendation from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner proceeded vide order dated 31-12-1993 to appoint the petitioner as Chowkidar on ad-hoc basis for a period upto 31-01-1994. The petitioner joined his services in pursuance to the said order dated 31-12-1993 without any objection. The term of appointment of the petitioner was being extended from time to time and he continued till his services came to be terminated vide issuance of an order dated 30-04-1994. Thereafter, vide order dated 02-05-1994, the petitioner was again appointed on ad-hoc basis in the office of the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri as Chowkidar for a period upto 31-05-1994 or till the post is filled up by a ST(H) community candidate. It is projected that the petitioner, however, continued in his services with extensions and vide order dated 23-02-2000, the engagement of the petitioner against a sanctioned vacant post on ad-hoc basis came to be regularized w.e.f. 01-06-1999. The services of the petitioner now being only regularized since 01-06-1999 and the same not having been given retrospective effect from the date he had initially joined his services in Page No.# 4/7 pursuance to the order dated 31-12-1993, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner’s name having been recommended by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to his selection by the CRC, Dhubri, the petitioner was entitled to be so appointed on regular basis. However, he was so appointed vide order dated 31-12-1993 on ad-hoc basis. Mr. Islam submits that initial recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Member-Secretary, CRC, Dhubri vide communication dated 24-12-1993 was for his engagement against a regular sanctioned vacant post. However, he submits that subsequently vide order dated 30-12-1993, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri required the Superintendent of Taxes (General), Dhubri to appoint the petitioner in his establishment against a ST(H) vacancy. He submits that there being no ST(H) candidate qualified for the said appointment, the initial appointment of the petitioner ought to have been so made on regular basis and not on ad-hoc basis as was effected vide the order dated 31-12-1993. Mr. Islam further submits that the petitioner w.e.f. his date of initial engagement, i.e. on 02-05-1994 had continued in his services with artificial breaks, he submits that during the continuation of the petitioner in his service on ad-hoc basis any candidate belonging to the ST(H) community came to be recommended for appointment on regular basis in the establishment of the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri. Accordingly, he submits that while the petitioner’s services was regularized vide order dated 23-02-2000, such regularization was limited only w.e.f. 01-06-1999, however, the same should have been so made effective w.e.f. 02-05-1994. Accordingly, he submits that having retired from his service on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-07-2020, the pension and pensionary Page No.# 5/7 benefits due to the petitioner be directed to be so computed by reckoning the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 02-05-1994 and not 01-06-1999. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, Finance & Taxation Department, Assam has submitted that no select list that may have been prepared by the CRC is available with the respondents and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner that he was a selected candidate and entitled to be appointed against a un-reserved Gr-IV post cannot be determined at this point of time. It is submitted that the materials available reveals that the petitioner’s initial appointment was on ad-hoc basis and was till the post in question was to be filled up by way of a recruitment of a candidate belonging to ST(H) category candidate. He submits that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on ad-hoc basis and the same was extended from time to time. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner being found eligible for regularisation only w.e.f. 01-06-1999, vide issuance of order dated 23-02-2000, the said order not being under challenge and that too within a period proximate to the date of issuance of the said order, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for retrospective regularization of his services would not mandate acceptance by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts as noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute and accordingly, the same is not reiterated. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the engagement of the petitioner vide order dated 31-12-1993 on ad-hoc basis as office chowkidar in the establishment of the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri was so effected basing on the merit position obtained by him in the connected selection process. The said order only reveals that Page No.# 6/7 the engagement of the petitioner on ad-hoc basis was against a vacancy reserved for ST(H) category candidates subject to de-reservation of the post. The orders extending the services of the petitioner also reveals that such extension was also being granted against a post reserved for ST(H) category candidate with the stipulation that the appointment would be so continued till the post is filled by a ST(H) community candidate. Further from the materials brought on record it is not revealed that the reserved post of Gr-IV for ST(H) community candidate in the establishment of the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri was at any point of time de-reserved which would have permitted the accommodation of a general community candidate against the same. In absence of such materials coming on record and further it not being established that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed against a Gr-IV vacant post basing on the merit position obtained by him in the connected selection process, this Court is of the considered view that the initial engagement of the petitioner effected vide order dated 31-12-1993 on ad-hoc basis would not mandate a reconsideration. The petitioner’s services were regularized vide order dated 23-02-2000, w.e.f. 01-06-1999. The petitioner is found to have accepted the said regularization of services so effected vide order dated 01-06-1999 and the grievance raised by him in the matter is found to have been raised after 07 (seven) years before the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri. After having submitted a representation in the matter in the year 2007, the petitioner is found to have, thereafter, submitted a representation on 03-01-2017 and it is only, thereafter, the present writ petition was instituted after 18 (eighteen) years w.e.f. the date of passing of the order of regularization of his services. The delay occasioning in the matter has not been explained by the petitioner in the writ petition. Further the petitioner not being found to have engaged on regular basis w.e.f. 31-12-1993, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of a challenge to Page No.# 7/7 the order dated 23-02-2000 regularising his services w.e.f. 01-06-1999, the prayer of the petitioner for granting retrospective effect to such regularization of services w.e.f. 02-05-1994 would not mandate acceptance from this Court and accordingly, the said claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands rejected. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant