Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040004402024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/148/2024 Goba Kato presently serving as Casual Driver under the Office of the Executive Engineer, PHW, Water and Supply Department, Aalo Division, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary/ Commissioner, Public Health Engineer, Water and supply Department, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Eastern Zone Public Health Engineer Water and Supply Department Namsai Arunachal Pradesh 3:The Superintending Engneer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Health Engineer (PHE) and Water Supply Department Circle Bene Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 4:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Health Engineer (PHE) and Water Supply Department Aalo Division West Siang District Page No.# 2/11 Arunachal Pradesh 5:Kenjom Ori Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Hoken Ori presently serving as WC Driver in the office of the Executive Engineer PHE and Water Supply Department Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Gumto Kato, Kirmani Lollen,Nyado Karga Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), G Loyi,Idak Bam,Tamo Taggu,Limi Bam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4; and Mr. L. Bam, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has prayed for setting aside the appointment of the Respondent No.5, as a work charged driver in the establishment of the Superintendent Engineer PHE & W.S. Circle Aalo (Bene), Arunachal Pradesh, effected vide an order dated 08.02.2022. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to consider his case for appointment Page No.# 3/11 as a work charged driver by reckoning the initial engagement effected in his case as a casual driver, vide an order dated 15-02-2002. 3. The factual brief requisite for adjudicating the issue arising in the present petition is noticed as under; The petitioner in the present petition projects that vide an order dated 17-03-2001, he was appointed as a casual driver for a period of 89 (eighty nine) days w.e.f. 21-01-2001, against a scheme in the establishment of the Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Aalo Division. It is projected that the petitioner thereafter, was deployed vide an order dated 15- 02-2002, to the establishment of the Junior Engineer. The petitioner has further projected that he was continuing as a casual driver and in support of the same has placed reliance on an order dated 29-05-2006, by which he was directed to carry out works of a driver. The petitioner in the writ petition has further projected that he while serving as a casual driver in the Aalo Division, had submitted a representation on 04-10-2012, praying for consideration of his case for appointment as a work charged driver in the Aalo Division. Thereafter, it is projected that the Respondent Authorities had appointed the Respondent No.5 Kenjom Ori, vide an order dated 08-02-2012, as a work charged driver on officiating basis with a probationary period of 02 (two) years. The petitioner by Page No.# 4/11 projecting that the Respondent No.5, being appointed only in the year 2005, was junior to him as a casual driver, had again submitted a representation before the Respondent Authorities on 23.04.2023. The said representation not being considered and the petitioner not being appointed to the work charged establishment, as a work charged driver, he has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner since the date of his initial engagement as a casual driver, has been continuing in the said capacity in various Offices under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PHE and W.S Division, Aalo. He submits that the Respondent No.5, herein, was appointed only in the year 2005, and admittedly was junior to the petitioner as a casual driver. He further submits that the Respondent No.5, could not have been favoured with an appointment as a work charged driver with higher emoluments, vide an order dated 08-02-2002, ignoring the case of the petitioner, for such appointment in the work charged establishment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the affidavit filed by the Respondents, has disputed the contention of the Respondents, that the petitioner had prayed for a change of his trade. Page No.# 5/11 5.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was required to work as a casual Cash Billing Clerk, by the Respondent Authorities, from time to time and as directed he had discharged his duties in such capacity. However, he submits that there is no order changing the trade of the petitioner and he continued to be reckoned as a casual driver, in terms of his initial order of engagement issued on 17-03-2001. 5.2. In the above premises, Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that a junior having been appointed as a work charged driver, the case of the petitioner not being considered for such engagement, the appointment effected in respect of the Respondent No.4, as a work charged driver, vide the order dated 08-02-2022, would mandate an interference, with a further direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the work charged establishment as a work charged driver, by reckoning his seniority as a casual driver w.e.f. the date of his initial engagement i.e. w.e.f. 17-03-2001. 6. Per contra, Ms. R Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondents, has submitted that although the petitioner was initially appointed as a casual driver, he was thereafter, continuously engaged as a casual Cash Billing Clerk. She submits that on a vacancy arising in Page No.# 6/11 the trade of mate, the petitioner has submitted his candidature. She submits that although, the petitioner had participated in the said selection process, the petitioner could not qualify in the said selection process. 6.1. Ms. Basar, by referring to the application submitted by the petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment as Store-keeper/LDC, has submitted that, therein, the petitioner had projected himself to be a casual Billing Clerk in the PHESD, Aalo. She submits that the change having been effected in the works done by the petitioner and he being considered as a casual mate in the establishment, his name was not incorporated in the gradation list of casual drivers working in Aalo Division. She submits that the name of the Respondent No.5, duly figured in the said list and accordingly, the Respondent No.5, on being considered was appointed vide the order dated 08- 02-2022, as a work charged driver. 6.2. Ms. R Basar, further submits that no person junior to the petitioner working as a casual mate and/or analogous posts, have been brought to the work charged establishment, superseding the petitioner. She submits that the trade of the petitioner was changed on considering his non-performance as a casual driver. 6.3. In the above premises, Ms. R. Basar, submits that the appointment as Page No.# 7/11 work charged driver being so effected only from amongst the persons working as casual drivers in the Division, the petitioner not figuring in the feeder cadre as a casual driver, his case admittedly was not permissible to be so considered for appointment as a work charged driver. 7. Mr. L. Bam, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent no.5, adopts the arguments made by the learned Junior Government Advocate and submits that the Respondent no.5, since the date of his initial engagement had continued to discharge his duties as a casual worker. He submits that the petitioner on being not found to have rendered satisfactory service as a casual driver, was engaged for the duties of casual Billing Clerk and he continued to discharge in the said capacity. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.5, has further submitted that there being enough casual drivers engaged in the establishment along with the drivers in the work charged/regular establishment, there was no necessity for engaging the services of the petitioner as a casual driver, after he was converted as a casual Billing Clerk. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.5, further submits that a seniority list was duly published of the incumbents working as casual drivers and the name of the petitioner does not figure, therein. He submits that the said seniority list was never put to challenge by the Respondent no.5, although the said list is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 8/11 would have no locus to assail, the appointment of the Respondent no.5, as a work charged driver vide the order dated 08-02-2022. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was initially engaged as a casual driver, vide an order dated 17-03-2001, in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Aalo Division. The petitioner thereafter, was deployed to the Office of the Junior Engineer. It is projected by the Respondents that after the deployment of the petitioner to the Office of the Junior Engineer, he was engaged as a casual Cash-Cum-Billing Clerk. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputed such contentions raised and submitted that the petitioner continued to work as a casual driver, after his initial engagement in such capacity was effected vide order dated 17-03-2001, and for the purpose has placed reliance on an order dated 29-05-2006, wherein, he was required to proceed to Itanagar with a Departmental vehicle. No further particulars have been disclosed by the petitioner, in the writ petition, to demonstrate that he was being continuously engaged as a casual driver. There is also no disclosure by the petitioner that he was deployed as a casual driver with any of the Officers of the Department and/or was so authorized to drive Departmental vehicles. The respondents in Page No.# 9/11 their affidavit had contended that the petitioner after his deployment in the Office of the Junior Engineer, vide the order dated 15.02.2002, noticing his unsatisfactory service as a casual driver was permitted to work as a casual Cash/Billing Clerk, therein. The said contention of the respondents, merit acceptance, when the application submitted by the petitioner, herein, for consideration of his case for appointment against the post of Store Keeper/LDC is perused. On a perusal of the said application dated 18.06.2010, it is found that the petitioner had, therein, projected himself as “casual billing clerk” in the Aalo, Division. The fact that the petitioner, was not considered as a casual driver, is also seen from the list of incumbents who were allowed to participate in a walk interview held in the Division, wherein, the name of the petitioner was placed against the trade of Casual Mate. The petitioner is not found to have raised any objection with regard to his such placement as a Casual Mate. Further, this Court finds that a seniority list of the incumbents working as a casual driver was published by the Superintending Engineer of PHEWS Circle (Bene) and therein, also the name of the petitioner is not found to be incorporated. The petitioner is found to have not raised any objections with regard to the exclusion of his name from the said list. The only projection made by the petitioner is that the projection of the respondents that his services were converted to that of casual driver to Casual Mate, would not mandate an Page No.# 10/11 acceptance, in absence of any order being brought on record in this connection. The said contention of the petitioner would not merit an acceptance given the fact that the petitioner was shown as Casual Mate in the list of candidate, who were found eligible for appearing in a walking interview and the petitioner on his own volition had described himself as a casual Billing Clerk in Aalo Division, in a application submitted by him for his appointment against the post of Store Keeper/LDC. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the petitioner not working as a casual driver, his name came to be excluded from the seniority list of casual drivers, as prepared by the jurisdictional Superintending Engineer and accordingly, the petitioner was not considered for appointment as work charged driver, while such appointment was effected in respect of the respondent no.5, herein. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, holds that the appointment of the Respondent No.5, to the work charged establishment, to be not erroneous. 11. Accordingly, the challenge in the present writ petition to the appointment of the Respondent No.5, as a work charged driver, effected vide order dated 08.02.2022, in the considered view of this Court would not merit acceptance. 12. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the petitioner Page No.# 11/11 was continued in his services as a casual cash billing clerk and he still continues to discharge duties in such capacity. Accordingly, the Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for an appointment either in the regular establishment and/or in the work charged establishment, as per the policy in place and for the purpose to reckon the seniority position of the petitioner as a casual worker w.e.f. 17.03.2001 i.e. the date when the petitioner was so engaged as a casual driver. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant