Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 169 (MEG)

Krindharine N. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2014-07-04

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. This writ petition filed by the five writ petitioners is challenging the common termination order dated 06.09.2013 issued by the Divisional Officer, Baghmara Soil & Water Conservation (CC) Division, South Garo Hills, Meghalaya for terminating the services of the writ petitioners as Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper and also prayed for a direction to the State respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioners as Soil & Water Conservation Field Worker and Rubber Tapper respectively. 2. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the State respondents. 3. The fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is briefly noted. The writ petitioners were appointed as Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper respectively in the establishment of the Divisional Soil & Water Conservation Office, Baghmara Soil & Water Conservation (CC) Division by the different orders dated 20.01.2011, 20.01.2011, 20.01.2011, 04.06.2009 and 02.11.2010 issued by the Joint Director, Soil & Water Conservation Department, Meghalaya, Tura and the Divisional Soil & Water Conservation Office, Baghmara Soil & Water Conservation (CC) Division temporarily against the vacant posts of (i) Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and (ii) Rubber Tapper. The copies of the appointment orders of the writ petitioners are available at Annexure 1(Colly) to the writ petition. On bare perusal of the appointment orders of the writ petitioners, it is clear that the writ petitioners were appointed temporarily basis subject to termination without notice or without assigning any reason thereof. Therefore, it appears that the writ petitioners with open eyes joined their services with the conditions that their appointments are only temporary and subject to termination without notice or without assigning any reasons thereof. On careful perusal of the pleaded case of the writ petitioners in the present writ petition as well as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the writ petitioners had been appointed as Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper without following the constitutional scheme for regular appointment i.e. without advertisement of the post and without facing any selection test. It appears that as there was an objection from the Audit Party regarding the payment of salaries to the writ petitioners, the Director of Soil & Water Conservation, Meghalaya, Shillong under his letter dated 04.09.2013 directed the Divisional Soil & Water Conservation Officer, South Garo Hills Soil & Water Conservation (CC) Division, Baghmara to terminate the ad hoc appointment/temporarily appointment of the writ petitioners as Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper forthwith. The copy of the said letter of the Director of Soil & Water Conservation, Meghalaya, Shillong dated 04.09.2013 is available at Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 4. In compliance with the said letter of the Director of Soil & Water Conservation, Meghalaya, Shillong dated 04.09.2013 and also as per the terms and conditions of the appointment orders of the writ petitioners, the Divisional Soil & Water Conservation Officer, South Garo Hills Soil & Water Conservation (CC) Division, Baghmara issued the impugned common termination order dated 06.09.2013 for terminating the services of the writ petitioners w.e.f. 06.09.2013 as the appointment was purely on temporary basis and subject to termination without notice or without assigning any reason thereof. Being aggrieved by the said common termination order dated 06.09.2013, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition. 5. The case of the writ petitioners in the present writ petition is that number of vacancies in the posts of Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper are not yet to furnish to the District Selection Committee and also that as there are 7(seven) number of vacancies in the said posts, the case of the writ petitioners may be considered for regularization of their ad hoc appointment/temporary appointment. Regarding this point, it is too late for the day to argue that since the writ petitioners had rendered service for a couple of years as Soil & Water Conservation Field Workers and Rubber Tapper on temporarily basis or ad-hoc basis, their services should have been regularized. It is quite well settled law that there cannot be no regular appointment unless and until the constitutional scheme for appointment on regular basis are fulfilled and there should not be backdoor appointment; and one who entered through backdoor has to go out the same door. It is also fairly settled that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. It is also fairly settled that one ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. In this circumstances, if the State respondents need temporarily or casual service of the Soil & Water Conservation Field Worker and Rubber Tapper, preference should be given to the writ petitioners. 6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.