Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 16 (MEG)

Marcello Mawlot v. Pynkmenlang Lyndem

2014-02-19

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2014
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. Heard. 2. By means of this application, the applicant has sought vacation of the interim order dated 21-1-2014 passed in WP(C) No. 11 of 2014. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, Shri Pynkmenlang Lyndem was an officiating Lower Division Assistant (for short LDA) with Public Health Engineering Department at Mairang. From the papers on record, it appears that the applicant, Shri Marcello Mawlot got selected for the post of LDA cum Typist and his name was recommended by District Selection Committee vide its order dated 16-12-2013 and he was appointed as LDA cum Typist vide order dated 17-1-2014. Consequently, the services of writ petitioner, Shri Pynkmenlang Lyndem were terminated vide order dated 17-1-2014. And the writ petitioner challenged the termination order by filing WP(C) No. 11 of 2014 in which the vacation bench of this court (when version of the other side was not before the court) on 21-1-2014 passed an interim order staying the impugned order dated 17-1-2014 till the next date of listing. Hence this stay vacation application MC[WP(C)]. No. 23 of 2014 has been filed by the respondent No. 7, Shri Marcello Mawlot (present applicant). 4. On behalf of the applicant and on behalf of the State respondents, it is argued that the writ petitioner has no right of continuance in the post of LDA as a duly selected candidate has been appointed on said post. Reliance was placed in this connection in the case of State of Karnataka vrs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC page 1 in which the Apex Court has held that the adhoc appointments etc should not be protected or directed to be regularized by the courts. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that there is no prayer made by the petitioner for his regularization and it is further submitted that his appointment has been made under Regulation 3(f) as such, he has the right of continuance. 6. However, perusal of the appointment letter of the writ petitioner shows that he was appointed in officiating capacity for 3(three) months till a recommendation is made by the District Selection Committee (for short DSC). As such, the petitioner's appointment letter itself shows the condition that his appointment was to continue only till the recommendation by the DSC. 6. However, perusal of the appointment letter of the writ petitioner shows that he was appointed in officiating capacity for 3(three) months till a recommendation is made by the District Selection Committee (for short DSC). As such, the petitioner's appointment letter itself shows the condition that his appointment was to continue only till the recommendation by the DSC. Therefore, once the DSC has recommended the name of the applicant, Shri Marcello Mawlot and he has been appointed, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner has a right to continuance on the post as he has not been appointed under any selection process. 7. Therefore, stay vacation application [MC[WP(C)]. No. 23 of 2014] is allowed and interim order dated 21-1-2014 stands vacated.