Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 152 (MEG)

Kamlesh Hajong v. State of Meghalaya

2014-06-17

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mrs. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. B Khyriem, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3. 2. The petitioners are the members of Garo Scheduled Tribe and they were appointed as Junior Accounts Assistants in the office of the Treasury Officer, Tura, Treasury vide office order dated 27.10.2005 on officiating basis for a period of two months w.e.f. 01.11.2005 to 31.12.2005 against the vacant posts. The copy of the said order dated 27.10.2005 is available at Annexure-B to the writ petition. On bare perusal of it, it is clear that the petitioners had been appointed on officiating basis as Junior Accounts Assistants against the vacant posts. The terms of the petitioners' appointments as Junior Accounts Assistants on temporary basis had been extended from time to time. The last order for extending the services of the petitioners was issued on 01.10.2012, and under that order, the terms of the officiating appointments of the petitioners had been extended up to 31.12.2012. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the case of 17 (seventeen) others officiating Junior Accounts Assistants, whose terms of appointments were similar with the present writ petitioners, in pursuance to the Cabinet decision, their cases had been forwarded to the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC') for consideration of their cases for regular appointments. In the writ petition, the petitioners had categorically stated that for the best reason not known to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners had been left out while sending the names of the officiating Junior Accounts Assistants for consideration for regular appointments by the MPSC. 3. The respondent No. 3, MPSC filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, vide para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition stated that only 17 (seventeen) ad hoc Junior Accounts Assistants had been sent by the State Govt. for consideration for regular appointments according to the rules. Para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 3-MPSC reads as follows:- 5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, I would like to state that Government in Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department vide letter No. PER (AR) 76/99/Pt. V/297. for consideration for regular appointments according to the rules. Para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 3-MPSC reads as follows:- 5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, I would like to state that Government in Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department vide letter No. PER (AR) 76/99/Pt. V/297. dated 27th August 2007 addressed to different Departments, informed of Cabinet's decision to regularize the services of ad hoc appointees under these Govt. Departments through special recruitment by the MPSC. A list of the ad hoc appointees, Department-wise, to be so regularized was enclosed with the letter. Copy of the Govt. letter enclosed. In accordance with this decision, Govt. Departments were to send a formal request to the Commission for regularization of the ad hoc appointees under them, as per approved list. Accordingly, the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, vide Letter No. DA/M(T)39/89/Pt. XII/377 dated 29th October 2007, had requested the Commission to conduct special recruitment for regularization of the services of 17 (seventeen) ad hoc Junior Accounts Assistants. The names and particulars of these JAA were enclosed with the said letter. The Commission fixed 5th March 2010 for conducting the personal interview of these 17 ad hoc appointees and informed the Director Accts. Treasuries vide letter No. MPSC/Spl. Rectt.-73/1/2007-2008/281 dated 18th Feb, 2010. Copy enclosed. The result of the interview was declared on 8th April, 2010 and same was communicated to the Director vide letter No. MPSC/Spl. Rectt.-73/1/2007-2008/285 dated 8th April, copy enclosed. It is also stated in Para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 that the Commission was never aware of the existence of the petitioners as ad hoc appointees in the Department and for easy reference, Para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 is also quoted hereunder:- 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, I beg to state that as stated earlier the Commission received a list of only 17 (seventeen) names for regularization from the Director. The Commission was never aware of the existence of the petitioners as ad hoc appointees in the Department. As already stated the Commission recommended the names of the said 17 (seventeen) persons for regularization. 4. The Commission was never aware of the existence of the petitioners as ad hoc appointees in the Department. As already stated the Commission recommended the names of the said 17 (seventeen) persons for regularization. 4. The respondent No. 2 the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Meghalaya, Shillong also filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, the respondent No. 2 stated that the Cabinet has approved for the regularization of the 17 (seventeen) ad hoc appointees and as such, ultimately the respondent No. 2, Director of Accounts & Treasuries issued an office order dated 14.04.2010 i.e. Annexure-VIII to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, which reads as follows:- GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND TREASURIES, SHILLONG. Dated: Shillong, the 14th April, 2010 OFFICE ORDER No. DA/M(T)46/86/Pt/I/66:- On the recommendation of the M.P.S.C., vide its letter No. MPSC/Spl. Rectt-73/1/2007-2008/285, dt. 8.4.2010, the following ad hoc appointed Junior Accounts Assistant are regularized in the post of Junior Accounts Assistant which they are holding with effect from 08.04.2010. 1. Smt. A. Laloo, Jowai Treasury 2. Shri. H. Passah, -do- 3. Shri. B. Khlem -do- 4. Smt. W. Tang -do- 5. Shri. W. Laloo -do- 6. Smt. W. Syiemlieh, Nongstoin Treasury 7. Smt. Sabina M. Sangma, Williamnagar Treasury 8. Shri. Wincoy K. Marak, -do- 9. Smt. Ellora K. Marak -do- 10. Shri. H.S. Momin -do- 11. Smt. Urekha Sangma, Tura Treasury 12. Smt. F.B. Marak, -do- 13. Smt. Muni Rickra Momin, -do- 14. Smt. Paritha R. Marak, -do- 15. Smt. Sazeda R. Sangma, Baghmara Treasury 16. Shri. G.K. Momin, Resubelpara Sub-Treasury 17. Shri. B.L. Nongbri, Mairang, Sub-Treasury. Sd/- K.S. Momin, Director 5. From the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it is clear that the case of the petitioners were left out while sending the list of ad hoc appointees i.e. Junior Accounts Assistants for consideration for regular appointments to the Commission i.e. Meghalaya Public Service Commission. It is now well settled that regular appointment should be in compliance with constitutional scheme. Regarding this settled law, we may refer to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors: (2006) 4 SCC 1 . This being the position of law, this Court is not directing the respondents to regularize the ad hoc services of the petitioners as Junior Accounts Assistants. Regarding this settled law, we may refer to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors: (2006) 4 SCC 1 . This being the position of law, this Court is not directing the respondents to regularize the ad hoc services of the petitioners as Junior Accounts Assistants. But taking into consideration of the admitted fact of the parties that the names of the petitioners had not been sent to the MPSC for consideration for regular appointments, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to send the names of the petitioners to the MPSC for consideration for regular appointments. It is left to the respondents to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to send the names of the petitioners to the MPSC within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. It is also made clear that it is the MPSC to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for regular appointments in terms of the constitutional scheme. 6. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.