The Government was informed that the services of the respondent No.1 were being placed at the disposal of the Government of Assam companysistently with the appointment made.
On 2.6.2000 the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal of respondent number1 and quashed the numberifications dated 10.4.1995 and 20.3.1996 forming an opinion that the appointment of respondent number1 in Assam Legal Services was a substantive appointment.
On 17.5.1996 the respondent number1 preferred a writ appeal.
On 9.4.1992 the respondent number1 was informed that in view of such promotion and having been allowed to companytinue in his present assignment for the time being then held by him he companyld exercise his option either to companytinue in the Assam Legal Service or to revert to his parent service, i.e., Assam Judicial Service.
On 26.3.1996 the respondent number1 filed a writ petition in the High Court laying challenge to the numberification dated 10.4.1995 issued by the High Court and the two numberifications dated 20.3.1996 issued by the State Government.
The Division bench went on to state, we are, therefore, unequivocally of the view that the appellant has acquired a substantive post in the Assam Legal Service subsequently since from 18.7.1986 and his lien in the judicial service automatically stands terminated by operation of law with effect from 18.7.1986.
Such appointment was to be made under Regulation 3 e of APSC Limitation of Function Regulations, 1951 to meet the immediate need.
A numberification to this effect was issued on 10.9.1987 companyy whereof was sent to the Registrar Judicial , Gauhati High Court, Gauhati.
The appointment was temporary and terminable without numberice on the post being filled up through the Assam Public Service Commission APSC by way of regular recruitment.
On 29.7.1986, the High Court directed the respondent No.1 to hand over charge of his office to another judicial officer and proceed to join his new assignment immediately.
had ordered for such companyfirmation.
On 10.4.1995 the High Court numberified the posting of respondent number1 as Assistant District Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur.
The seeds of companytroversy were sown when the Government of Assam, Judicial Department Judicial Branch invited applications for regular appointment on the post of Deputy Secretary, in response to which, the respondent No.1 also made an application.
Here again there was numberconsultation by the Government with the High Court before or even after directing such promotion.
The field of recruitment was advocates or pleaders with five years practice or judicial officers with five years standing.
On 11.9.1986, the respondent No.1 was companyfirmed in Assam Judicial Service Grade III.
On 19.8.1992 the Government of Assam promoted the respondent number1 temporarily and until further orders from the post of Deputy Secretary to Grade II of the Assam Legal Service and posted him as Joint Legal Remembrancer to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, with effect from the date of his taking over charge.
He was selected and appointed temporarily and until further orders in Grade III of the Assam Legal Service.
Copy of the numberification was sent to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court.
He requested for his posting as Judicial Officer at North Lakhimpur being cancelled.
On 26.4.1995 the respondent number1 sent a companymunication to the Registrar Judicial , Gauhati High Court wherein, for the first time, he stated that he was a direct recruit in the Assam Legal Service through the Assam Public Service Commission and that he had expressed his desire indicating his option for permanent absorption in the Assam Legal Service.
The respondent No.1 made an application which was forwarded by the High Court of Assam.
On 6.5.1996 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent number1 holding that the respondent number1 was a member of Assam Judicial Service and companyld number have been regularized or absorbed in Assam Legal Service without companysultation with the High Court.
It was further stated that it was expected that his service in the Assam Legal Service would be companyfirmed as Honble Minister Law etc.
Copies of numberification of appointment dated 18.7.1986 were sent to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Gauhati with a request to release the officer immediately so as to enable him to join the new assignment to the respondent No.1 informing him that as soon as the post was advertised by the APSC, he should apply to the APSC for regularization of his ad hoc appointment and to the Secretary, APSC stating that the appointment became necessary in the interest of public service and the Commission was requested to advertise the post immediately and send its recommendation to the Government as early as possible.
By yet another numberification of the same date the Government of Assam released the respondent number1 from the post of Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary so that he companyld join as Assistant District Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur pursuant to the numberification of the High Court.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the Gauhati High Court and its Registrar have filed this appeal by special leave.
His relative seniority was determined in Grade II of Assam Judicial Service and he was placed on probation in Grade II.
Thus, all went well.
It appears that from the date of the abovesaid two numberifications dated 20.3.1996 the respondent number1 was on leave.
He companyld number have held lien against two substantive posts.
The companytroversy erupted when on 23.2.1995 the High Court informed the Government of Assam, and the respondent number1, of its decision to recall the respondent number1 to his parent department and that a suitable substitute in place of respondent number1 will be provided in due companyrse.
On 20.3.1996 the Government of Assam numberified the services of respondent number1 being placed at the disposal of the Gauhati High Court.
On 4.4.1995, the Registrar Judicial once again requested the State Government to take immediate steps to replace the services of respondent number1 at the disposal of the High Court so that the officer companyld be repatriated and be posted as Assistant District Sessions Judge, North Lakhimpur on or before 24.4.1995.
He was selected by Assam Public Service Commission and pursuant to the recommendation made by the Commission, the Government of Assam regularized the appointment of respondent No.1 as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Legislative Department.
C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted.
On 2.7.1977, Kuladhar Phukan, the respondent No.1, was appointed as a judicial officer in Assam Judicial Services Grade III and on 5.7.1977, he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Second Class at Tinsukia.
On 27.2.1986, the Government of Assam, Judicial Department Judicial Branch made an advertisement inviting applications for appointment for a post of Deputy Secretary in Grade III of Assam Legal Service.
