Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 22 (MEG)

Marius Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya

2018-06-07

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. The petitioner having I.T.I. certificate in Mechanical Trade was temporarily appointed as Helper in the scale of Rs. 300-5-330-6-390-7-425/- p.m. by Principal, Shillong Polytechnic, Shillong vide Memo. No. SHP/Estt-II/86/99-104, dated 28th January, 1986. The appointment was purely temporary to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. 2. The petitioner continued in service. In the year 2012 vide Memo. DHTE/ESTT/TE/APT.12/2007-12/Pt/172, dated 28th February, 2012 issued by Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong the petitioner has been appointed temporarily on adhoc basis as Cashier in the said College in the scale of Rs. 9200-230-10810-EB-300-13510-410-18020/- p.m. plus other allowances as admissible under rules. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis as Helper and continued as such till 28th February, 2012 when he was appointed on adhoc basis as Cashier. 4. The petitioner seems to have represented for regularization of his service. Principal (Respondent No. 7) had taken up the matter for regularization of petitioner and four others employees with Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong vide communication dated 14th December, 2009. Then again vide letter dated 5th December, 2011 addressed to Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong, Principal (Respondent No. 7) has again conveyed that petitioner and another employee had more than ten years of adhoc appointment. 5. Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong took up the matter with Under Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Education Department on 25th April, 2012 vide No. DHTE/ESTT/TE.3/2010-12/259. In the said communication he has made it clear that the petitioner had joined on 04.02.1986 as Helper, the post created vide letter No. EDN.197/80/Pt/60, dated 12.12.1978 with further mention that petitioner has been recommended for regularization on 28.03.2006 vide letter dated 28.03.2006. It is also mentioned that the case of the other recommended candidates were approved but petitioner is awaiting order for regularization, when he could not get any response has filed the instant petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No. 1 to 7 while giving details in Para-8, it has been stated that replies from Government awaited means reply to letter No. DHTE/TE/Misc 20/2012-14/222, dated 3rd April, 2014 is awaited. The said communication suggests that statement showing appointment on adhoc basis of the staff of Shillong Polytechnic has been submitted to Under Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Education Department. 7. The said communication suggests that statement showing appointment on adhoc basis of the staff of Shillong Polytechnic has been submitted to Under Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Education Department. 7. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 7 would submit that the initial appointment of petitioner was irregular because it was not done by District Selection Committee but such submission being insignificant in view of later development i.e. as it appears that there has been some policy for regularization of employees who have rendered minimum ten years of adhoc service. It is in that background the matter has been taken up by Principal (Respondent No. 7) with Director of Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya, Shillong and in turn Director of Higher & Technical Education has taken up the matter with Government, Government as such is required to take a final decision which till date has not been taken. 8. The petitioner has been working continuously for a period of thirty two years. After rendering thirty two years of service his fate still hangs in uncertainty for want of decision by Government. True it is Government cannot prolong adhoc services but equally true the State itself is appeared to have introduced a policy for regularization of adhoc appointees who have completed ten years of service which according to learned counsel for respondents is a onetime measure, petitioner at relevant time was also falling within the scope of the Scheme. 9. In the light of counter affidavit particularly Para-8, Respondent No. 2 is directed to accord consideration to the case of petitioner for regularization in the background of the Scheme, the position stated above and to pass appropriate order whatever permissible under rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The decision as shall be taken by Respondent No. 2 shall be conveyed to petitioner. 10. Right is reserved to petitioner to re-agitate subject to survival of cause. 11. Disposed of as above.