Appointments made without prescribed recruitment violate Articles 14 and 16 and warrant no equitable relief.

The petitioners in two connected writ petitions challenged the Joint Director of Health Services, Jorhat’s order dated 24 May 2017 removing them from Grade-IV service on the ground that their initial appointments were not genuine

They claimed to have been appointed between 1999 and 2005, to have performed their duties and received salaries, and to have had their salaries stopped from October 2014

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed verification of their salary claims and payment for any period in which they were found to have worked, without prejudice to the State’s inquiry into the validity of their appointments

The petitioners sought to set aside the removal order and obtain salary arrears

1. Whether the petitioners established that their appointments were made through a lawful recruitment process, such that the removal order dated 24 May 2017 warranted interference

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to salary arrears for the period from October 2014 until their removal, subject to verification that they had actually worked during that period

Recruitment to the relevant Grade-IV posts was governed by the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment of Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997, which required appointments to follow the prescribed recruitment process

Appointments made without an open and transparent process, and contrary to the governing statutory procedure, offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and do not ordinarily warrant equitable relief

The Court also referred to the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which governed employees appointed before 1 February 2005, noting that such employees would ordinarily have GPF accounts

In Narayan Prasad Rabha v. State of Assam & Ors., W.A. No. 428/2023, the Division Bench had granted relief where appointments followed a public advertisement against sanctioned vacancies and fraud was not established; the Court distinguished that decision on the facts

The earlier order in WP(C) No. 2578/2015 required salary payment for any period in which the petitioners were verified to have worked, while preserving the State’s right to continue its appointment inquiry

The petitioners produced appointment orders but did not provide details or evidence of a selection process under the 1997 Rules

They also failed to substantiate their claims of cash salary payments or continuous service with acquittance rolls, attendance records, or relevant GPF-account particulars; the Court further noted that they had not raised a grievance about the absence of GPF deductions

On that record, the Court treated the appointments as backdoor appointments made contrary to the statutory process and Articles 14 and 16, and held that neither the removal order nor the lack of a prior hearing warranted interference; it considered a hearing futile in the circumstances

However, because the unchallenged 2015 order remained operative, the Court preserved the petitioners’ claim to salary for any period after October 2014 in which they could establish that they had actually worked

It directed the Director of Health Services, Assam, to verify whether each petitioner worked from October 2014 until removal and, if so, determine and release the salary due by a speaking order.

The verification and resulting action were to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; the connected writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.