JUDGMENT
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, and Mr. T. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Nani Tagia learned counsel appearing on behalf private Respondent No. 4 and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned State Counsel for the State Respondents.
2. The legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.7.2001 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh appointing the Respondent No. 4, Shri Santosh Kumar IFS
as Director (Tourism), Government of Arunachal Pradesh for a period of three years on deputation is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 25.7.2001 reads as follows :
“GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
ITANAGAR
ORDER
No. SECY(Tou)Misc/3/2001 Date Itanagar the 25th July, 2001
In the Interest of public service the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to appoint Shri Santosh Kumar, IFS (AGMUT-93) to the post of Director (Tourism), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for a period of three years on standard terms and conditions of deputation as applicable from time to time.
Other terms and conditions of service not mentioned herein shall be governed by the rules and orders of the Government issued from time to time.
Sd/-
Chiet Secretary,
Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.”
3. The Writ Petitioner in the case, an Association of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Officers comprising of more than 300 members, hereinafter referred to as APCS, has contended that the post of Director (Tourism) having been created as a substantive post, is a cadre post belonging to the cadre of the petitioner and the same is deserved to be filled up from the qualified and suitable members of the APCS. The impugned appointment on deputation of the Respondent No. 4, who is from Indian Forest Services and working as Divisional Forest Officer (Silviculture) (for short “DFO”) in the Department of Forest, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by the State Respondents, for reasons not recorded and in violation of the administrative fairness, in this substantive post of Director (Tourism) amounts to deprivation and infringement of the right of the members of the Petitioner’s Association and as such the same is highly arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the Respondent No. 4 is not eligible and suitable for holding the post of Director (Tourism) which is apparently a higher post than the post of DFO held by him. The State-Respondents without rhymes or reasons appointed the Respondent No. 4 on deputation. Even if
the period of deputation is only for 3 years, according to him, the procedure of deputation of an incumbent to another department ought to have been followed but in the instant case, it is apparently clear that the State-Respondent has not adhered to any established norms for such deputation. It is a clear case of pick and choose, based on usual practice of ad hocism and is another example of back door entry.
5. It is further submitted that the post of Director (Tourism) was created as substantive post only on 8.6.2001. Earlier, the Department of Tourism was bifurcated from the information and Public Relations Department in the year 1995. Prior to creation of this post as substantive, since 1995 officers mainly from the Petitioner’s Association were functioning as Director (Tourism). Such submission of Mr. Tiwari is well supported by the State-Respondents and attention has been drawn to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-Respondents particularly to paragraph-6, which is being noticed as follows :
“The Post of Director was held by officers from various departments as additional charge. Till date 6 (six) officers have served as Director (Tourism) out of which first 2 (two) were IFS officers from the Forest Department. The incumbency list is sliown below:
Name-of Officers
from
to
1.
Sri K.D.Singh,IFS
10.2.1995
23.4.1995
2.
Sri Avinash Kumar IFS
24.4.1995
24.6.1998
3.
Sri Bhaskar Kulbe, IAS
25.6.1998
27.1.1999
4.
Sri Jitendra Narain, IAS
28.1.1999
9.2.1999
5.
Sri M. Etc, APCS
10.2.1999
3.5.2001
6.
Sri T. Taggu, APCS
4.5.2001
29.6.2001″
6. From the above incumbency list, it is seen that except Sri K.D Singh IFS and Sri Avinash Kumar, IFS, all other 4 (four) officers belonged to the Administrative Service. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the officers namely, Sri K.D. Singh, IFS and Sri Avinash Kumar IFS who were brought to man the post of Director (Tourism), originally held the post of Conservator of Forest which was equivalent to the post of Director (Tourism) and if a person of that status and rank would have been appointed as a Director (Tourism), the Petitioner’s Association would not have any grievance. Since the Respondent No.4 though an IFS, is only a Divisional Forest Officer, the post much lower in rank and status to the post of Director
(Tourism), drawing a pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 p.m., he ought not to have been appointed on deputation to such post which carries the pay scale of Rs. 14000- 18000 p.m (Rs. 12000-16000 pm as per Govt Notification dated 8.6.2001 -Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State-Respondents), with higher rank and status to the detriment of the interest of the Petitioner’s Association.
7. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the present post of Director (Tourism) is a cadre post and Govt. has already processed to fill up the said post from the cadre officers of the Association. Referring to the Office noting at Annexure-II of Govt’s affidavit, it is submitted that the proposal is already on the anvil to fill up this post by promotion from APCS cadre officers and therefore it must be a cadre post and only to be filled up from a member of the Petitioner. As such according to Mr. Tiwari following precedent, an eligible member of the Petitioner’s association holding the equivalent post ought to have been deputed. His contention is that the immediate predecessor to the post now held by Respondent No. 4, one Mr. T. Taggu was from APCS. Who was holding the post of Director (Tourism), admittedly from 4,5.2001 to 29.6.2001 during which period the post of Director (Tourism) was created as substantive one. As Mr. Taggu, some time during the first week of July 2001 fell sick and had to go on long leave due to his medical problem, during his incumbency. Respondent No. 4 was hand-picked surreptitiously to man the post in question which ought to have been filled up from the cadre post of APCS, on being fallen vacant.
8. It is further alleged that such appointment of Respondent No. 4 was favourably initiated at the behest of Respondent No. 2, the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Tourism. The State Respondents even did not care to issue a circular or notice inviting the willingness/option from the eligible officers to function as Director (Tourism) and such action on the part of the Govt. goes to show that State Respondents took a back door policy only to accommodate the Respondent No. 4. It is further contended that the post in question being purely administrative post, is required to be filled up by the members of the Administrative Service as per precedent, who were directly linked with the administration having expertise and knowledge for manning such administrative post.
9. The learned Counsel has also stated that as there is no Recruitment Rules for such appointment to the post of Director (Tourism), it is the duty and obligation of the Government to act in accordance with the principles of justice, equity and relevant judicial precedent. To hammer home this point, the Petitioner has fallen back upon an observation of the Apex Court made in the case of R. L.Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1988 (2) SCC 250, particularly, the paragraph-7 which speaks as follows :
“At the hearing of this case we asked the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties to show whether there were any rules governing the deputation of an officer working in the judicial department. No such rules were produced before us. This case has, therefore, to be determined on the principle of justice, equity and relevant judicial precedents.”
10. Argument has also been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that in the case of deputationist, the service status of the said post must be equal with that of parent department. In other words, an officer who is sent on deputation must occupy a post equivalent to the post in the parent department with same scale of pay. Relying to a decision in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 1974 SC 555, particular the paragraph-82, Mr. Tiwari, has contended that the Govt should take into account all relevant factors, in a case of deputation, in determining “the equivalence of the nature and responsibilities of the two posts as regards their similarity and in declaration of equivalence of those posts it must not be so dis-similar that no reasonable man can passively say that they are equivalent in status and responsibility. It is also stated that the deputation from a lower post to a post with higher status and responsibilities would definitely hit the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Arbitrariness and discrimination are writ large on the face of the impugned order itself and as such the impugned action on the part of the State-Respondents requires interference of this Court in order to instil confidence and to prevail sense of equality amongst the Govt. Officers.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Tagia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondent No. 4 raising the preliminary point, has urged that the writ petition is itself not maintainable as the Writ Petitioner is not a registered body and has totally failed to move this Court with an enforceable legal right. Referring to the paragraph-7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioner against.
The counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4, it is submitted that the Petitioner’s Association has four cadre services ranging from:
“1.
APCS-Entry grade
:
Rs. 8000
2.
APCS-Senior grade
:
Rs. 10000
3.
APCS-Selection grade
:
Rs. 12000
4.
APCS-Admin grade
:
Rs. 14000″
and the said association itself is lacking to stake claim to have enforceable right as a collective body. The affidavit-in-reply of the Petitioner itself goes to show that there are four categories of the members having the different pay scales and as such they cannot challenge the appointment of the Respondent No, 4 to be illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, no specific case is made out in this writ Petition to the effect that whose legal right out of the four categories has actually been infringed by this impugned appointment.
12. According to Mr. Tagia, learned counsel, the post is purely temporary one, and urgently required to be filled up as replacement of one Mr. T. Taggu, earlier incumbent of the post. It is only a stopgap measure to meet the administrative exigencies and accordingly the Respondent No. 4 has been appointed, being qualified person for the post, in the interest of public service. Referring to the case of Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1963 SC 395, it is further urged on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 that office noting referred to by the Petitioner is not binding upon the State-Respondents.
13. Defending the impugned order, Mr. Nabam, learned State Counsel for the Respondents at the very outset has contended that this Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the APCS Association has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. It is also contended that since no Recruitment rules has been made for the post of Director (Tourism), it could not be said to be cadre post as claimed by the Petitioner. That apart this post has, at no point of time, been reserved for members of the Petitioner’s Association. Since the post itself is a very important one, involved directly for promotion and development of Tourism in the State having its enormous potentials for attractism of tourists from all over the world, the same needs to be filled up immediately absolutely in the public interest. Sickness of earlier, incumbent Mr. T. Taggu who had to go on medical leave, has necessitated for immediate appointment of the Respondent No. 4 in the post only as a stop-gap arrangement to overcome the emergent situation. According to Mr. Nabam, the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 as apparent of the fact of the order itself, is only on deputation that also for 3 (three) years time bound period.
14. Taking serious exception to the maintainability question, Mr. Tiwari has forcefully argued that the Respondents, at this stage of final hearing cannot be permitted to raise this issue. Once matter has been admitted without any objection to its maintainability, now the same cannot be allowed to be agitated. Particularly, the State-Respondents at no point of time, since the date of admission of the Writ Petition as well as passing of the interim order, have taken this preliminary point. Even pleadings did not contain any such issue. More importantly, in presenting the applications for vacation of the interim order by both the State-Respondents as well as private Respondent No. 4 in their respective Misc. cases, i.e., by Misc. case No. 154(AP) 2001 and Misc. case No. 162 (AP) 2001, the question of maintainability was never raised before this Court. Even at the final hearing of those Misc. cases, the maintainability of the Writ Petition was not questioned. According to him, the Petitioner’s Association, being itself a Registered one, has locus standi to agitate the appointment of the Respondent No. 4. According to him, assuming even if the Petitioner’s Association is not registered, then also they can agitate the issue being arguable one before the Writ Court. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (3)GLT 151 (Debananda Deori v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.) to hammer home this point. In the said case being a PIL, this Court held thus :
“If there is a legally arguable point sought to be made out in the Petition, we are of the view that the same is required to be examined with a view to give relief to the Petitioners rather than reject the Petition on a pedantic view.”
It is admitted by the learned Counsel that when the Writ Petition was moved on 1.8.2001, the Petitioner’s Association was not registered but subsequently, on 4,9.2001, the Petitioner’s Association was registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 much before the above Misc. cases for vacation of the interim stay order were heard arid disposed of by this Court on 11.10.2001 and as such, today in course of final hearing, the question of non-registration of the Writ Petition to make it non-maintainable does not arise. Records also show that when the above Misc. cases were disposed of on 11.10.2001, no such plea was ever raised before this Court, when Petitioner’s Association was already registered.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel of the parties and also perused the pleadings placed on record. During the course of hearing Govt. has produced the records which have also been perused.
16. Before going to take up the discussion on merit of the case it would be proper and expedient to decide the maintainability issue as raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the instant Petition has been preferred by the Association of APCS represented by its General Secretary in the representative capacity invoking the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. An Association generally must be a registered one as per requirement of law. In the instant case, it is agitated that at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner’s Association was not a registered one. On that count alone, the Petition is liable to be rejected. But from the perusal of records particularly the registration certificate appended to the affidavit-in-reply (Annexure-A) it appears that the Petitioner Association was registered on 4.9.2001 after filing of the present Writ Petition. It also appears that neither at the time of filing the applications for vacating the interim order by all the respondents nor during the hearing of the Misc. applications, maintainability issue was raised. Therefore facts remains that at the time of final hearing today, this Association is a registered one. Assuming the Association is not registered, by applying the ratio of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Debananda Derori’s case (supra ), it may be held that since the Petitioner has raised an issue relating to appointment on deputation on ad hoc basis to a post with higher rank and status in complete disregard to the Constitutional and legal mandate, there seems to be an arguable point which can be agitated by the Association. Accordingly, I unhesitatingly hold that the Writ Petition is maintainable and the Association has locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. Regarding the question of enforceable legal right of the Petitioner to move this Court, it is to be noted that since 1995 till this post is created as substantive, the members of the Petitioner’s Association had mostly been preferred for appointment as Director (Tourism) barring two officers from the Indian Forest Services who were also as argued holding the rank of Conservator of Forests being the equivalent post to the post of Director (Tourism). That apart though the office noting as already referred, is not binding upon the State-Respondents, but in reality a proposal is initiated to fill up the post of Director (Tourism) by promotion from the APCS cadre officer. There is no denying of the said fact, as evident from the State-Respondents’ own affidavit wherein the abovementioned noting has been annexed as Annexure-II. Obviously, filling up of such higher post purely on ad hoc basis, in absence of any service rules by an officer in lower rank like respondent No. 4, that too from other department, would surely cause acute heart burning among the members of the Petitioner-Association. Since the post in question earlier held by the member of the Association and the Govt. is also proposing to fill up the post from the Petitioner-Association, considering such factual situation, I hold that the Petitioner’s Association has enforceable legal right to move this Court.
18. Now let us consider the merits of the case. This Court at the time of issuance notice of motion on 1.8.2001, granted interim relief to the Petitioner staying the impugned appointment order dated 25.7.2001 but the Misc. applications, as noticed hereinabove, on being presented by the State-Respondents as well as the private Respondent No.4, this Court vacated the said interim stay by order dated 11.10.2001. On perusal of the said order, it appears that the vacation of interim order was solely based on the factual position to the effect that the Respondent No.4 joined his new appointment as Director (Tourism) on 30.7.2001 much before the passing of the interim order on 1.8.2001. Disposing of both the Misc. cases above mentioned vacating the interim relief, this Court in its order dated 11.10.2001 categorically observed as follows :
“However, it is made clear that pendency of this case shall not stand on the way of the Respondents – State to appoint a regular Director (Deptt. of Tourism, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh) as per Recruitment Rules’ and even, the Government/State-Respondents are at liberty to revoke the order of appointment “of the private respondent to the post of Director, Tourism, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh on deputation and appoint a competent person as Director as per Service Rules. It is also made clear that the appointment of the private Respondent as Director, Tourism, Government of Arunachal Pradesh shall be subject to the out-come of the main Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 981 (AP)/2001.”
19. The above observation is a clear indication that the State-Respondents are required to make an endeavour to appoint a regular Director in the Tourism Department. Even liberty was granted to the State Respondents to revoke the order of appointment to the private Respondent No. 4 to the said post and appoint a competent person as Director as per the Service Rules. On pointed query as to whether Government has taken any steps after passing the said observations on 11.10.2001 for making regular appointment to the said post, Mr. Nabam, learned State Counsel, has expressed his inability to apprise this court about the present situation as he has no instruction. This goes to show that the State -Respondents are not in a mood to fill up the post on regular basis. Even the framing of ‘R.R.’ regulating the service condition of the said department is also a far cry.
20. What amazes this Court is the reasons advanced by the State-Respondent in support of the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post in question that too on deputation. One reason addressed by the learned State counsel is that due to the serious ailment of the predecessor, Mr. Taggu, the Govt. has to appoint the Respondent No.4 to meet the administrative exigencies. Other reason advanced on behalf of the State, itself indicates an interesting feature which is apparent from the affidavit-in-opposition itself particularly in paragraphs 9 and 12. Those paragraphs are reproduced as follows :
“9. That the statements made in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Writ Petition, this deponent states that due to long impending absence of Shri T. Taggu, the work of tourism department was suffering very much particularly in the context of ensuing tourism festivals like Buddha Mahotsava (13th-14th Oct., 2001). Internation Conference and Exhibition on Rural Tourisn Udaipur 5th-7th Sep., 2001). World Travel Mart, London (Nov., 2001). Brahmaputra Darshan Festival (Jan., 2002), Easteen Himalayan Festival (Feb., 2002 ) etc.
Hence, in view of long pending works of urgent importance
and possibility of Shri T. Taggu extending his leave further,
the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh appointed another person,
namely Shri Santosh Kumar IFS as Director (Tourism) for 3
years on standard terms of deputation. It is further” to state
that, since Shri T. Taggu was availing long leave because of
his sickness, the Govt. did not find it necessary to issue order
for his posting. That shall be done after he joins back for duty.
** ** **
(12) That the statements made in paragraph -14 of the Writ Petition, the deponent states that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is having large forest area (82% of its geographical area being covered by green cover) and hence development of tourism in this State resolves around Eco-Tourism and this has been recognised by even Govt. of India and for which a special package of Rs. 14 crores have been earmarked for Arunachal Pradesh. Hence, Govt. felt that a forest officer can appreciate the Eco-Tourism aspect in a better way and can do justice to the job and hence brought Shri Santosh Kumar, IFS on deputation. In Arunachal Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism has to go side by side and there has to be linkages and synergetic effects to boost tourism sector in Arunachal Pradesh.”
21. A cursory reading of those paragraphs would go to show that no valid or cogent reason relating to public interest has been assigned by the Respondents for such appointment Respondent No. 4.
22. As regards the allegation of playing vital role by the responded No. 2 in the appointment of respondent No. 4, it appears that there is some force in terms of the own admission of the State-Respondent as reflected in paragraph 11 of their affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is averred as under:
“11. That the statements made in paras 12 & 13 of the Writ Petition, this deponent humble state that the respondent No. 2 was earlier working as Dy. Commissioner, Papum Pare District and the respondent No. 4 was working as Divisional Forest Officer in the same District and got several opportunities to work together on many critical issues. Based on the competence and efficiency of respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2, who is presently serving as Secretary (Tourism) moved a proposal for bringing respondent No. 4 on deputation to tourism department as Director (Tourism) which was duly approved by the State Govt. The respondent No. 2 being the Head of Department has got all the right to move a proposal to fill-up the post of Director (Tourism) which was lying vacant since long because of absence of Shri T. Taggu due to his long leave and it is a normal procedure.”
Therefore it is clear that the respondent No. 4 has been appointed only at the initiation of respondent No. 2 without following any accepted norms and it can be safely held that the same is contrary to established principles of public employment and not in public interest.
23. After having carefully scrutinised the impugned order itself I feel tempted to say that it ex-facie has administered a glaring example of pick and choose policy of the Govt. Respondent No. 4 though an IFS officer is admittedly a junior officer in the rank of DFO in the forest department, drawing much lesser pay scale than to the post of Director (Tourism). On pointed asking again, as regards the present emoluments drawn by the respondent No. 4, Mr. Tagia learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, has categorically stated that he has no instruction in this regard. There is also no mention about his pay scale in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private Respondent. Therefore accepting the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner, there is no doubt that respondent No. 4 is drawing much higher pay than his original post of DFO. Obviously the Director (Tourism) is a higher post with higher pay scale. In my humble opinion, deputation on ad hoc basis to higher post with higher pay scale is not correct and legitimate and Respondent No. 4 has been mistakenly deputed to the post of Director (Tourism). (Relied on the observation in T. Shantharam v. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in [1995] 2 SCC 538.
24. The post in controversy itself, is, admittedly an administrative post. When much eligible officers, are readily available from APCS, one has to wonder why and how a person from different department has been handpicked to be appointed on deputation. It appears that the State-Respondent have appointed respondent No. 4, for reasons not disclosed and taking advantage of non-existence of recruitment rules.
25. It is also seen that before selecting and appointing the Respondent No. 4 Govt. had not taken any initiative to issue some sort of notice or call for option from any other officers including the members of the Petitioner-Association. Such action lacks transparency and administrative fairness, being the mandate of law in public employment, on the part of the Govt. Had there been any such notice or calling for option, definitely some other eligible persons would have opted for the post.
26. On overall considerations of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that this impugned apppointment is a unique example of favourtism and biasness and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same smacks of arbitrariness and contrary to the norms of service jurisprudence.
27. Above all, the most surprising aspect which disturbs the Courts mind is that the rampant practice of ad hocism in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The impugned appointment on deputation, as claimed by the State-Respondent, has been necessitated only due to urgency and administrative exigencies and the post has been filled as a stop-gap arrangement meaning thereby by way of ad hoc appointment as no R.R. is forthcoming. The message is very clear. On one hand there would be no attempt to frame the related R.R. despite direction of this court and on the other hand on pretext of non-framing of the said R.R., appointment of such nature would be made to accommodate Govt’s blue-eyed officer. It appears that ad hocism in the State has become the order of the day – notwithstanding the Apex Court’s and this Court’s direction, rendered from time to time.
28. It would be pertinent to mention herein that a Public Interest litigation being PIL No. 25/97 (Somar Potoon v. State of A.P and Ors.) was preferred against the Govt. policy of appointment on ad hoc basis before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in passing an interim order on 7.7.1997 observed as follows :
“The matter relates to appointment on ad hoc basis while the Petitioner is challenging such appointment on the basis of the Circulars issued by the State Government on 31.7.1996 and 19.9.1996. The Petitioner has prayed for implementation and enforcement of these circulars without any deviation or departure. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has also placed before us a list of such ad hoc appointees as per order dated 24th June, 1997 and has prayed for an ad interim writ restraining the respondents from making such further appointments. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent/state on the other hand urged that it is only in view of the exigencies of service that such appointments are made, that too for a period of six months. So far as the appointments already made are concerned, they are subject to the result of this Writ Petition and no further appointment shall be made without prior written order from this Court and those appointed for a fixed term of six months, their terms shall not be extended.”
Disposing the said PIL finally this Court by order dated 19.3.2001 observed as follows:
“The PIL was entertained originally on a complaint being made by the Petitioner that circulars dated 31.7.1996 and 19.9.1996 of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, O&M Department relating to restriction on ad hoc appointments to different posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had been violated by different authorities. On 7.7.1997 this Court passed interim order that no further appointment be made without prior written order of this Court and those appointed for a fixed term of six months, the said terms be not extended. Thereafter, as and when the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had intended to make ad hoc appointments they filed applications before this court for written orders and depending upon the justification shown by the Government for ad hoc appointment in each case the court had been passing appropriate orders from time to time. Further to ensure that the practice of ad hoc appointment was not resorted to frequently and instead regular recruitment was made to different posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, this court had been issuing directions from time to time for completing the process of regular recruitment to different posts as soon as possible.
An application has now been filed on belialf of State of Arunachal Pradesh today enclosing therewith a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 20.4.2000 of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, which goes to show that a detailed procedure for making ad hoc, officiating temporary appointment/promotion of short term duration and appointment on contract basis has now been laid down by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. In the said office Memorandum, it has been indicated, inter alia, that ad hoc appointments against direct recruitment posts can only be considered in the circumstances indicated therein and that too for a limited period of one year only. We have perused the circumstances indicated in the said Office Memorandum under which ad hoc appointments can be made and we find that it is only in very limited circumstances that ad hoc appointments are to be made to different posts. In view of the restriction now put by the Government or Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, on ad hoc appointments to different posts, we are of the opinion that it is no longer necessary for us to continue this PIL and monitor from time to time the appointments either by way of regular recruitment or ad hoc appointment to different posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
The power to make appointments, regular or ad hoc is of the Government and the court only intervenes where there is arbitrariness and discrimination in making regular recruitment of ad hoc appointments. Since the Government has now laid down the detailed procedure/guidelines in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 20.4.2000 putting restriction on ad hoc appointments and have also indicated therein that restrictions have been put the order to avoid pick and choose between the employees for such appointments, we see no purpose in continuing this PIL in this court any longer. We however wish to add that regular recruitment should be the rule and ad hoc arrangement should be only exception and should resorted to only where exigencies of service or public interest demand. We are told by the Senior Analyst, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, Government of Arunachal Pradesh that Recruitment Rules with regard to most of the services under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh have been finalised. In case of those services under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for which Recruitment Rules have not been finalised, the same be finalised within six months from today.”
Prior to this in another case in Writ Appeal No. 49 of 1994 arising out of C.R No. 2551/93 (Shri Anong Perme v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.) disposed of on 21.2.1994 the Division Bench of this Court in dealing with certain appointments made on ad hoc basis right from Assistant Engineers upto Superintending Engineers in Electrical Department had the occasion to record in paragraph 5 as follows :
“We find from records that all the appointments were made on ad hoc basis right from Assistant Engineers upto Superintending Engineers. Mr. Majumdar (Mr. A.M. Mazumdar the then Advocate General Arunachal Pradesh) has assured this Court that the draft service rules which are ready will be published shortly and within a period of six months the entire process for regularisation including fixation of seniority shall be completed. The statement of the learned Advocate General shall form part of this order. We hope and trust that the. Government will stop the ad hocism and make regular appointments instead of ad hoc appointments.”
But till today the practice of ad hocism goes on unabeted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
29. Now it is necessary and important to note that, despite order dated 11.10.2001 passed in the Misc. cases abovmentioned, Govt. has not taken any steps till date to make a regular appointment replacing such ad hoc appointment. More so, no ‘R.R.’ have been framed till date after creation of the post as substantive on 8.6.2001, though functioning of post started since 1995, as evident from the Govt.’s own affidavit. It seems that the State-Respondents are yet to severe the affectionate bond with ad hocism. Since Govt. has failed to take any necessary action to fill the post on regular basis till date in terms of the observation made In order dated 11.10.2001, I do not feel inclined to approve the present impugned appointment on deputation of the Respondent No. 4 and accordingly there are reasons, as indicated above to interfere with such appointment. Consequently the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
30. Since the impugned appointment is quashed, it is directed that Govt. may initiate for framing the ‘R.R.’ regulating the service conditions of the Department of Tourism including the selection and appointment to the post of Director (Tourism) or the equivalent post in the Department of Tourism with a reasonable period preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order and then necessary steps be taken to fill up the post on regular basis.
31. It is further made clear that till the regular appointment to the said post Govt. may consider to fill up the present vacant post in question by taking option from eligible officers from the APCS cadre or any other Departments holding equivalent post with equal pay scale of the present post of the Director (Tourism). This direction is made taking into consideration the averments made by the State-Respondents in paragraph 6 of their affidavit, as already noticed herein above.
32. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.