Dharmendra Das And 7 Ors. vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010262502017

2026:GAU-AS:15574
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5547/2017
DHARMENDRA DAS and 7 ORS.
S/O JUGEN DAS, VILL-JANKHANA GAON, PO-KELIONI, DIST. JORHAT,
ASSAM
2: SHRI SURAJIT GOGOI
S/O GIRIN GOGOI VILL- SELENGHAT BORNAGAYAN GAON
P.O. SELENGHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
3: SRI TANKESWAR TALUKDAR
S/O MATHUR TALUKDAR VILL and P.O. DESOINAGAR
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
4: SMTI. BINDU BASFAR
D/O BHUKA BASFAR VILL- CIVIL HOSPITAL CAMPUS
JORHAT
P.O. and DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
5: SHRI MALAY PALLAB BORAH
S/O SRI CHANDRA DHAR BORAH VILL- CHARA CHOWA GOAN
PANICHUKUWA
P.S. PULIBAR
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
6: SRI KANHAYA BASFOR
S/O LT. SUDI BASFOR VIL- BENGANAKHWA GRANT
P.O. BENGANAKHUWA
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM

Page No.# 2/16
7: SRI JITEN DAS
S/O SRI BHOGRAM DAS VILL- NA JANKHOWA GAON
P.O. KOKILAMUKH
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
8: SRI MANAS JYOTI HAZARIKA
S/O SRI HARESWAR HAZARIKA VILL- SARUHOOZ GAON
P.O. DAHOTIA
DIST. JORHAT
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE A DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
2:DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-36.
3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES JORHAT
P.O. JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
PIN - 785001.
4:DISTRICT TRESURY OFFICER JORHAT
P.O. JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
5:ACCOUNTANT TO THE OFFICE JOINT DIRECTOR
OF HEALTH SERVICES JORHAT
P.O. JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN - 785001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.B TALUKDAR, MR.P BAIRAGI,MR.S J SARMA,MR.G G
GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, FINANCE,SC, HEALTH

Page No.# 3/16
Linked Case : WP(C)/6329/2017
RATUL NATH and ANR.
S/O. SRI UTTAM NATH
VILL. NATHGAON P.O. BHONA
DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.
2: AKASH BASFOR
S/O. MUNILAL BASAFOR
VILL. BENGANAKHOWA P.O. BENGANAKHOWA
DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE A DEPTT.
DISPUR GHY. ASSAM.
2:DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36.
3:JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
JORHAT P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-785001.
4:DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER
JORHAT P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM.
5:ACCOUNTANT TO THE OFFICE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
JORHAT P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
PIN-785001.
------------
Advocate for : MR.P BAIRAGI
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS.

:::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

Page No.# 4/16
For the petitioner : .
Mr. S.J. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. B. Gogoi, Ld. Addl. Advocate
General ;

Date on which Judgment is reserved : 29.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 12.10.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the Judgment? : NA
Whether the full Judgment has been
pronounced? : Yes

Judgment & Order (CAV)
Heard Mr. S.J. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State Respondents.
2. The issue arising in the above-noted 02 (two) writ petitions being
common to both the writ petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties, the writ petitions were taken up for hearing analogously, and are
being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners in the above-noted writ petitions have assailed an
order dated 24.05.2017, issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Jorhat,

Page No.# 5/16
removing them from their respective services, on the grounds that their initial
appointments were found to be not genuine.
4. WP(C).No.5547/2017
The petitioners in the above noted writ petition have projected that they
were appointed as Grade-IV employees by the Joint Director of Health Services,
Jorhat, on 16-02-2000, 05-10-1999, 15-12-1999, 21-12-1999, 18.02.2000,
12.11.2004, 02.02.2000 and 16.02.2000, respectively. The petitioners have
projected that in pursuance to joining their respective services, they continued
to discharge their assigned duties. It is also projected that the appointments of
the petitioners were regular appointments and they were being paid their
salaries accordingly. It is also projected that the salaries of the petitioners were
stopped without any reason, w.e.f., October, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioners
were removed from their respective services vide the order dated 24-05-2017.
WP(C).No.6329/2017
The petitioners project that the petitioner no.1 was initially appointed on
12-02-2000, by the Joint Director of Health Services, Jorhat, as a Grade- IV
employee, and the petitioner no.2, was also appointed as a Grade- IV employee
vide order dated 12-01-2005, by the same authority. The petitioners also project
that after joining in their respective services, in pursuance to the orders of
appointment issued to them, they were discharging their assigned duties and
were also being paid their salaries. However, the salaries of the petitioners were

Page No.# 6/16
stopped since October, 2014. Thereafter, on the ground that the petitioners
initial appointment was found to be not genuine, the petitioners were removed
from their services vide order dated 24-05-2017.
4.1. The petitioners in the above noted 02 (two) writ petitions have also
projected that their salaries being stopped, they had together approached this
Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.2578/2015, praying
for authorization of their salaries in arrears.
4.2. This Court vide order dated 29-09-2015, had disposed of the said
writ petition by directing for payment of the arrear salaries of the petitioners,
however, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to continue with the
enquiry, regarding their appointment as Grade-IV/Sweeper.
4.3. The petitioners, subsequently having been removed from their
services, have instituted the above noted writ petitions.
5. Mr. S. J. Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioners, in the above
noted writ petitions, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has
submitted that the petitioners in pursuance to their initial appointments, were
being paid their salaries in cash, and subsequently their salaries were being so
deposited in their respective bank accounts. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that the appointments of the petitioners being in
pursuance to a process of selection, the appointments have to be deemed to be
regular and to have been so effected against sanctioned vacant posts as

Page No.# 7/16
available at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, he submits that the
respondent authorities, having extracted the service from the petitioners, could
not have withheld their respective salaries.
5.1. Mr. S. J. Sharma, by referring to the order dated 24-05-2017, issued
towards removing the petitioners from their respective services, has submitted
that no reason has been assigned as to why the appointments of the
petitioners were found to be not genuine. He submits that the reasoning
advanced by the respondent authorities in the order dated 24-05-2017, being a
vague one, the same would mandate an interference from the Court with a
further direction to the Respondent authorities for reinstatement of the
petitioners in their respective services and for release of their salaries in
arrears. Mr. Sharma, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad
Rabha and Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., [Judgment & Order dated
30.01.2026 in W.A. No.428/2023 .
6. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents, has
submitted that the appointment order of the petitioners, on verification, was
found to be a fake/forged, inasmuch as, there is no record of the petitioners
having drawn their respective salaries, after they had joined their services in
pursuance to the orders of appointments issued to them. He submits that the
petitioners being appointees prior to 01.02.2005, they having projected that

Page No.# 8/16
they were appointed as regular employees, GPF deduction, was mandated to be
made from their salaries. No such deduction is found to have been made from
the salaries of the petitioners and the petitioners are also not found to have
raised any grievance in this connection. He submits that the petitioners were
subsequently incorporated in the New Pension Scheme, although the petitioners
project that they were appointed on a regular basis prior to 01.02.2005.
6.1. Mr. B. Gogoi, further submits that, in terms of a policy decision
adopted in the matter, the salaries of the Government employees were being
deposited in their respective bank accounts w.e.f., the year 2006, in the district
of Jorhat. However, from the materials brought on record, it is seen that the
petitioners salaries were being deposited in their account only w.e.f. 2011. He
submits that the petitioners have projected that they were drawing their salaries
in cash, prior to the date from which their salaries were being deposited in their
respective bank accounts, however, no material was brought on record by the
petitioners during the process of verification to substantiate such claim made by
them. He submits that the acquittance roll maintained for the purpose of
disbursing salaries to the employees, were also not produced by the petitioners,
and the acquittance roll so maintained is also not found to include the names of
the petitioners, in the above noted 02 (two) writ petitions.
6.2. Mr. B. Gogoi, has further submitted that, from the pleadings brought
on record by the petitioners, it is evident that their appointments were not

Page No.# 9/16
preceded by a process of selection, and the petitioners were issued with the
said appointments by the Officer concerned on a pick-and-choose basis. Mr.
Gogoi, submits that the Departmental Authorities, upon verifying the service
particulars submitted by the petitioners, found that they were not appointed in
pursuance to a due process of selection, and were held to be not genuine
employees, and accordingly they were removed from their respective services.
6.3. Mr. B. Gogoi, further submits that, in the present writ petitions also,
the petitioners have not brought on record any material, to demonstrate that
they were in continuous service from the date of their initial appointments, and
accordingly, he submits that the selection and appointments of the petitioners
being doubtful, the plea of the petitioners that they were not given a notice,
before the orders of removing them from service, would not mandate a
consideration by this Court, inasmuch as, issuance of a notice, in the facts and
circumstances of the present writ petitions, would be a futility.
6.4. Mr. B. Gogoi has further submitted that, the reliance placed by the
petitioners upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
Narayan Prasad Rabha (supra) would not advance their cases, inasmuch as,
in the said decision, this Court had found the appellants, therein, to have been
so recruited, in pursuance to a due process of selection, and further that the
regularization of services of some of the appellants, therein, was also found to
have been made, by following the procedure mandated in this connection.

Page No.# 10/16
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
materials available on record.
8. In the above noted 02 (two) petitions, the petitioners have brought
on record, the orders of appointments issued to them, by the Joint Director of
Health Services, Jorhat. However, there is no statement made in the writ
petitions, that the said appointments were so made, on the petitioners being
selected, in pursuance to a recruitment process initiated in the matter. The
recruitment to Grade-IV post, figuring in the service, is to be so effected, in
terms of the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment of
Class-III and Class-IV Posts), Rules 1997.
9. From the date of their respective appointment, as disclosed by the
petitioners, in the present writ petitions, this Court finds that, all the
petitioners, herein, were so appointed, pursuant to the provisions of the said
Rules of 1997, coming into force. However, the writ petitions do not contain any
details regarding the particulars of the selection process, so initiated prior to
issuance of orders, appointing the petitioners in the matter. The petitioners in
the present writ petitions, have also projected that, after they had joined their
respective services, in terms of the orders of appointment issued to them, they
were being paid their respective salaries in cash. While the said statement has
been made by the petitioners, the petitioners have not brought on record any
material to justify the same. It is the common practice that the Government

Page No.# 11/16
servants were earlier being paid their respective salaries, through the
acquittance roll. However, the petitioners in the present writ petitions, have not
even averred that they had received their such salaries, by signing on the
acquittance roll.
10. The petitioners further have not brought on record, copies of the
Attendance Register for the period following their appointments to establish that
they were actually discharging their duties, with effect from the date of their
respective appointments, and/or proximate, thereto. Further, another fact which
this Court notices is that the petitioners in the above noted 02 (two) writ
petitions have projected that they were appointed on dates prior to 01.02.2005,
i.e., prior to coming into force of the “New Pension Scheme”. Accordingly, on the
date the petitioners were appointed, the Old Pension Scheme, governed by the
provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, was holding the field.
In respect of the Government employees appointed, prior to 01.02.2005, GPF
accounts were opened in their names. However, in the present writ petitions,
the petitioners have not projected, that GPF accounts in their respective cases,
were opened by the respondent authorities. In fact, no particulars of such GPF
accounts has been brought on record. The petitioners are found to have not
raised any grievance, with regard to non-deduction of their respective
contribution towards the GPF account from their respective salaries. The initial
appointment of the petitioners, in the above-noted 02 (two) writ petitions, not

Page No.# 12/16
having been found to have been so effected in terms of the provisions of the
said Rules of 1997, this Court is of the considered view, that the petitioners
must be held to be backdoor appointees.
11. The petitioners have miserably failed to establish, that they had
entered into their respective services, in a lawful manner. The appointments
effected in respect of the petitioners, being found to be in contravention of the
statutory provisions holding the field and also in violation of the provisions of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the said appointments cannot be
given an imprimatur, by this Court. The appointments of the petitioners, being
found to have been effected dehors the procedure mandated, the claim of the
petitioners for interference with the order of removal issued in their respective
cases, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. This Court having found
that the appointments of the petitioners being so effected, without an open or
transparent process being undertaken, it is held that such appointments strike
at the root of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the
petitioners cannot be held to be entitled, to be extended with equitable relief.
12. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider
the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of
Narayan Prasad Rabha (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. On a perusal of the said decision, this Court finds that, therein, the
Court had found that the appellants involved, were in fact, appointed in

Page No.# 13/16
pursuance to a public advertisement, issued for recruitment against existing
vacant sanctioned posts. Further, the allegation of fraud leveled by the
Respondents, was found to have not been established against the appellants,
therein. The facts as existing in the present writ petitions, are clearly
distinguishable from the facts involved, in the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad Rabha (supra), and accordingly this
Court is of the considered view, that the said decision would not advance the
case of the petitioners, herein. The petitioners having been removed, from their
respective services on the ground that their initial appointments, were found to
be not genuine, in other words, the petitioners being not found to have entered
their respective services in a lawful manner, this Court is of the considered view,
that the extension of opportunity of hearing, to the petitioners, in the light of
the facts and circumstances, noticed hereinabove, would be a mere futility, and
accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the
above noted writ petitions, that the order dated 24-05-2017, would mandate an
interference, inasmuch as, the petitioners were not afforded, an opportunity of
hearing, before the issuance of the same, would not also mandate an
acceptance from this Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view,
that the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case requiring this
Court to interfere with the order dated 24.05.2017, in exercise of its

Page No.# 14/16
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the challenge presented by the petitioners to the order dated
24.05.2017, stands rejected.
14. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider
the prayer of the petitioners for being authorized their salaries in arrears w.e.f.
October, 2014. In this connection, this Court would refer to the conclusions
drawn by this Court vide the order dated 29.09.2015 in WP(C).No.2578/2015.
The said conclusion being relevant, the same is extracted, hereinbelow;
“While the validity of petitioners’ appointment may be enquired into by the respondents,
but if they are working as per orders of the Departmental authority without any
conclusive determination as to the validity of their appointments, they are required to be
paid their due salary as was paid earlier. Payment of salaries to the petitioners, however,
would be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to continue with the enquiry
stated to be regarding their appointment as Grade-IV/Sweeper.
In the light of the above, respondent no.2 i.e. the Director of Health
Services, Assam, is directed to verify the claim of the petitioners and thereafter pass
appropriate order(s) for release of salary of the petitioners for the aforesaid period within
a period of 4 (four) weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
15. A perusal of the said conclusion would go to reveal that this Court
noticing the fact that the validity of the petitioners appointments was under
enquiry, and opining that if the petitioners were found to be working as per
orders of the Department Authority, without there being a conclusive
determination as to the validity of their appointments, they are required to be
paid their due salaries as was paid earlier. Accordingly, this Court directed the
Director of Health Services, Assam, to verify the claim of the petitioners and

Page No.# 15/16
thereafter, pass appropriate order(s) for release of salaries of the petitioners.
16. The said direction having been passed by this Court also by noticing
the fact that the validity of the appointments of the petitioners was under
scrutiny, this Court is of the considered view that the said order dated
29.09.2015, having not being assailed by the State Respondents, the same has
attained its finality. Accordingly, the petitioners, herein, although found not be
entitled to continue in their services after 24.05.2017 i.e., w.e.f., the date they
were removed from their respective services, this Court in view of the
conclusions drawn vide the order dated 29.09.2015 in WP(C).No.2578/2015,
requires the Director of Health Services, Assam, to examine as to whether the
petitioners were in services w.e.f., October, 2014, till 24.05.2017, and in the
event, the petitioners were found to have been rendering services during the
said period, the Director of Health Services is required to release to the
petitioners their due salaries for the said period.
17. Accordingly, in view of the directions passed by this Court vide order
dated 29.09.2015 in WP(C).No.2578/2015, the Director of Health Services,
Assam, is directed to implement the said direction forthwith. The Director of
Health Services, Assam, shall verify the contentions of the petitioners that they
were rendering their services after October, 2014, till the date of their removal
from services. The Director of Medical Education, Assam, on verifying the claim
of the petitioners finds that the petitioners, were rendering services shall

Page No.# 16/16
proceed to issue a speaking order and therein, determine the salaries receivable
by the petitioners. In the event, on verification, all or any of the petitioners in
the above noted writ petitions, are found to be not discharging their duties
during the period of October, 2014, till the date of their removal from service,
the Director of Health Services, Assam, shall indicate the same in the speaking
order required to be passed by him.
18. The exercise now required to be initiated for release of salaries to the
petitioners be so initiated and concluded within a period of 03 (three) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order from the
petitioners in the above noted 02 (two) writ petitions.
19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petitions
being WP(C).No.5547/2017 and WP(C).No.6329/2017, stand disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Ranu
Boro
Digitally signed by Ranu Boro
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781005, l=Kamrup Metro, st=Assam, street=HOUSE NO 25
JAPORIGOG, KRISHNANAGAR,GUWAHATI, Japorigog, Dispur Assam India 781005 NEAR
MASJID, title=0094,
2.5.4.20=c747c5c0d257d22064ef564859e1ebec92 d7edcfa1fcc678cbde562c68c9e94f,
serialNumber=e8ee80fb826c508f1dcf37332bc0b9 e247dba00f5758c2dde86f2e36159f37d6,
[email protected], cn=Ranu Boro
Date: 2026.10.14 13:45:16 +05'30'