Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010127592021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4210/2021 HEMONTA GOGOI AND 5 ORS S/O- SRI TARUN GOGOI, VILL- 2 NO. GHORPHOLIA GAON, P.O CHENIJAN, P.S. JORHAT, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785010 2: MANASH PROTIM GOGOI S/O- LATE SARAT GOGOI VILL- NO. 2 GHARPHALIA GAON P.O CHENIJAN DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 785010 3: NILU BALMIKI W/O- SRI SATYA NARAYAN BALMIKI R/O- ROWRIAH NEFA TINIALI VILL- KATHALBASTI P.O ARIFIELD JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 785005 4: MUKUL GOGOI S/O- SRI BHADRESWAR GOGOI VILL- NO. 2 GHARPHALIA GAON P.O CHENIJAN DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 785010 5: ROMESH BORAH S/O- LT. BENUDHAR BORAH VILL- GARMUR NAPAM GAON P.O. GARMUR DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 785007 Page No.# 2/6 6: RIMJIM GOGOI D/O- SRI PRAFULLA GOGOI VILL- 2 NO. GHARPHALIA GAON P.O CHENIJAN DIST.- JORHAT PIN- 78501 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 3:THE PRINCIPAL JORHAT INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CHENIJAN SOTAI JORHAT PIN- 78501 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BORUAH, MR. R BORO,MR A BORUAH,MS A DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 20.01.2025 Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioners’ grievances is with the termination of their services, vide termination order dated 16.07.2021, issued by the Principal, Jorhat Institute of Page No.# 3/6 Science and Technology (JIST). 3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioners were initially appointed on contractual basis to Grade –IV posts, vide orders issued by the Principal, JIST. Their contractual appointments were regularised vide order dated 11.10.2019. However, vide order dated 16.07.2021 issued by the Principal, JIST, the petitioners’ services were terminated with immediate effect. The petitioners have accordingly put to challenge the termination orders by way of this writ petition. 4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that a similar matter, i.e. W.P. (C)/3227/2021 (Ajanta Dutta & 2 Ors –vs- The State of Assam) has been disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2023. He submits that the present case is a similar case and the present case should be disposed of in terms of the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in WP(C) No.3227/2021. 5. Mr.S.Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel, in view of the fact that the present case is similar to the WP(C) No.3227/2021, with regard to the regularisation of the services of contractual employees therein and the subsequent termination of their services. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. This Court in its order dated 06.06.2023 passed in WP (C) No.3227/2021 observed that the services of the petitioners therein, who had been initially appointed on contract basis, had their services regularised without any advertisement having been issued or calling for applications from the open market. The termination orders of the petitioners therein were thus not interfered with by this court, as the appointments made to regular posts on Page No.# 4/6 regular basis without issuance of an advertisement was held to be invalid in the eyes of the law. However, this court had disposed the WP (C) No.3227/2021 by directing the Principal, JIST to re-appoint the petitioners on contractual basis, if their services were still required and allow them to continue in their contractual service, till regular appointments were made as per law. 8. Paragraph Nos. 15 to 18 of the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in WP (C) No.3227/2021 is reproduced herein below as follows: “15. This Court has considered the notice issued by the Principal, JIST while appointing the petitioners on contractual basis to their respective posts, i.e., Section Officer, Office Assistant and Computer Operator. It is seen that the initial appointment of the petitioners were on contractual basis and, thereafter, on the advice of the Director of Technical Education, the Principal, JIST constituted a Selection-cum- Screening Committee for scrutinising the testimonials and the performance report of the petitioners. The Selection-cum-Screening Committee in its meeting held on 25.02.2019 resolved to recommend the case of the petitioners for appointment on regular basis. The same was forwarded to the concerned Director of Technical Education and, thereafter, the Director of Technical Education issued the Order dated 20.07.2019 appointing the petitioners on regular basis. 16. This Court has noticed that while the petitioners were appointed on regular basis, no advertisement was made calling for applications from the open market and the manner in which the petitioners have been appointed on regular basis cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law particularly when such regular appointments were made to sanctioned posts. 17. Accordingly, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order dated 24.06.2021 by which the petitioners were terminated from their regular services. However, it is important to note that the petitioners, prior to their appointment on regular basis, were serving on contractual basis in the same posts. Therefore, when the regular appointment of the petitioners were cancelled by the Order dated 24.06.2021, the Page No.# 5/6 petitioners should have been reverted to their contractual appointments. This has not been done and they have been deprived of their means of livelihood. 18. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents, particularly, the Principal, JIST to re-appoint the petitioners on contractual basis if their services are still required. In the event, the petitioners are taken back to service on contractual basis, they shall be allowed to continue in their contractual service till regular appointments are made following the due procedure of law.” 9. I do not find any reason to come to a different view than that taken in WP(C) No.3227/2021. 10. The above being said, Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors –vs- The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1417, has held that contractual employees do not have any right to regularisation of their services, only because they have been serving for a long period of time. 11. In view of the decision of this court in WP (C) No.3227/2021, this writ petition is also being disposed of in line with the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in WP (C) No.3227/2021. Accordingly, the Principal, JIST, may re-appoint the petitioners on contractual basis, if their services are still required. In the event the petitioners are taken back on contractual basis, they shall be allowed to continue as such, till regular appointments are made after issuing advertisements for the same. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant