Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Memo No. DE/Nal/ESSTT-94/3/BAC/pt-I/2940-47, dtd. Nalbari the 27th Oct/98."

11. A bare glance on the above order of appointment clearly shows that the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent was not against any regular sanctioned post, but against a post, which had been created pursuant to a Centrally Sponsored Scheme and this scheme was, admittedly, known as Operation Black Board. The order of appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent also clearly shows that so long as the scheme was to continue, the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent was to continue unless, otherwise terminated earlier. The writ petitioner's appointment was, it is transparent, inherently temporary in nature depending upon the continuation of the scheme knows as Operation Black Board (in short, 'OBB'). The post, to which the writ petitioner-respondent stood appointed, was, thus, a 'plan' post and not a 'non-plan' post. The difference between a 'plan' post and a 'non-plan' post is that a 'plan' post is a post under a temporary scheme or plan meaning thereby that so long as the scheme or plan continues, the appointment continues. As against this nature of appointment of 'plan' post, appointment against 'non-plan' post means that the post is perpetual in nature unless done away with.

respondent's post was a 'plan' post and unless the writ petitioner-

respondent's appointment was converted into a regular appointment by appointing him to a regular post against a 'non-plan' post, the writ petitioner-respondent's appointment was to be over on 28.02.1999.

What logically follows from the above discussion is that the writ petitioner-respondent could have been adjusted/absorbed against a 'non-plan' post, but the question of converting the 'plan' post into a 'non-plan' post did not arise, because the scheme did not perceive any such conversion.

The salary expenditure will be debitable under the Non Plan Head of accounts.

Sd/- A. Choudhury, Dist. Elementary Education Officer, Nalbari, Memo No. DEEO/Nal/Convert/28/5127-33, dated 17/8/2000"

17. A bare reading of the order, dated 17.08.2000, aforementioned clearly shows that the order had been made without the concurrence of the Department of Finance, Government of Assam, which, admittedly, could not have been done. As already mentioned above, there was no question of conversion of a 'plan' post into a 'non-plan' post, because such conversion would mean creation of a sanctioned 'non-plan' post. As there was no creation of any sanctioned post against 'plan' post, the question of conversion of 'plan' post into a 'non- plan' post did not arise at all. It is on the basis of such ex facie illegal order of conversion, dated 17.08.2000, that the petitioner's appointment was confirmed in the said post by order dated 31.12.2008, which was issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Baska. This order read as under:

23. While considering the impugned judgment, we notice that the learned Single Judge has observed, in the order, dated 28.07.2011, that the writ petitioner's appointment was against a substantive vacancy and against regular pay scale. In fact, the learned Single Judge has mentioned, in the judgment under appeal, that, initially, the appointment of the writ petitioner was against a 'plan' post, but the same was brought under 'non-plan' post by order, dated 17.08.2000. We notice that the learned Single Judge did not make enquiry as to how the 'plan' post came to be converted into a 'non- plan' post. Even when asked in the appeal at hand, the writ petitioner-respondent had no answer. This, in itself, shows that the 'plan' post could not have been converted into a 'non-plan' post in the manner as has been done in the present case.