Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1101 (GAU)

Anungla Imdong Phom v. State of Nagaland

2006-12-12

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT M.BK. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. K.N. Balagopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland, Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and Mr. R. Iralu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 7. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Lecturers on contract basis on different dates in 1999. Their appointments were extended by various extension orders. 3. The Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Nagaland made a decision to regularize the services of contract Lecturers who had completed 5 years of service as on 31.12.2003 by conducting a screening test. The cut-off date was extended from 31.12.2002 to 31.3.2004. In the screening test held on 1.4.2004, the screening committee, of which the Director of Administrative Training Institute was the Chairman, recommended 84 candidates including the petitioners for regularization of their services. 4. The petitioners are aggrieved that the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide memo No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 12.5.2004 issued a memorandum fixing 16.1.2004 as the cut-off date for the purpose of counting the length of service in connection with the regularization of ad hoc/contract employees under memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 18.2.2004. 5. This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for quashing, the memo No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 12.5.2004 and for directing the Government respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per recommendation of the screening test held on 1.4.2004. 6. The petitioners were admittedly appointed on contract basis. The said appointments being purely contractual, the stage of acquiring the status of Government servant had not arrived. They are not having any right to continue as Lecturers beyond the period fixed by the relevant contract. As per circular bearing No. HTE/7-1/2003 dated 20-11-03, a copy of which is at Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 on announcement of the result of the selection made by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), the services of all contract Lecturers and Librarians stand terminated. As per circular bearing No. HTE/7-1/2003 dated 20-11-03, a copy of which is at Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 on announcement of the result of the selection made by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), the services of all contract Lecturers and Librarians stand terminated. There is nothing to show that the said decision of the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Nagaland to regularize the services of contract Lecturers who had completed 5 years of service as on 31.12.2003 or as on the extended date of 31.3.2004 by conducting a screening test was made with the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, when the petitioners' names were recommended by the screening committee held on 1.4.2004, no legal right can be said to have been arisen in their favour for claiming appointment on the basis of the said recommendation. Had the recommendation been made, even by a competent authority, the petitioners would not have acquired any legal right for claiming appointment merely on the basis of inclusion of their names in the recommended list. 7. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is ascertained that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued the office memorandum dated 12.5.2004 fixing the cutoff date an 16.1.2004 superseding its earlier office memorandum dated 18.2.2004 after getting a formal decision of the State Cabinet about the regularization of services of all contract employees of the State, who had completed 5 years on or before 16.1.2004. The cut-off date was not only in respect of contract Lecturers but also in respect of all contract employees of the State. In the facts and circumstances, one cannot say reasonably that the said cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily and in order to deprive the petitioners the benefit of regularization. The said fixing of the cut-off date was done within its power by the Government as a matter of policy. There was no violation of any law or rules while fixing the said cut-off date. By fixing the said cut-off date applicable to all the contract employees of the State at that time, it cannot be said that the petitioners were treated with discrimination, unjustly or unfairly. The petitioners are not having any legal right to claim for fixing a cut-off date suitable or beneficial to them. By fixing the said cut-off date applicable to all the contract employees of the State at that time, it cannot be said that the petitioners were treated with discrimination, unjustly or unfairly. The petitioners are not having any legal right to claim for fixing a cut-off date suitable or beneficial to them. In case they were not qualified to seek for regularization on the basis of the terms fixed by the competent authority, they should have taken part in the regular recruitment process conducted by the NPSC as per relevant recruitment rules. 8. In the result, having regard to all the relevant considerations, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.