Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 38 (MEG)

Blandar Syiemlieh v. State Of Meghalaya

2019-02-19

S.R.SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B.Khyriem, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA on behalf of the respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. R.Pyngrope, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving in Kyrdum Government L.P.School, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin since the year 1999 and till date he has not been regularised inspite of the fact that his regularisation was recommended by the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin. Learned counsel also contended that instead of regularising the petitioner, the Director of School Education and Literacy, Shillong (respondent No. 2) directed the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin to break his service and allow him to continue vide order dated 18th February, 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. R.Pyngrope has no objection against the submission forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel for the respondents No. 1-3, Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee in a fair manner submitted that under these circumstances she left the matter to the Court. I appreciate her stand as I find from the submission of the learned counsels and Annexures 7 & 9 that injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. Now, I reproduce the second para of Annexure-7 letter issued by the I/c Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin dated 10th March, 2016 addressed to the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong which reads as follows: In this connection, may I request you that since Shri. Blandar Syiemlieh had been rendering continuous and satisfactory service for more than 15(Fifteen) years, regularization of service (Departmental regularization) may kindly be accorded at Kyrdum Govt. L.P.School in the vacant post caused vice Shri. H.Nonglang retired. 6. It is unfortunate that the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin had passed an order which is at Annexure-9 dated 18th February, 2016 which is reproduced herein below: "GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL SCHOOL EDUCATION OFFICER: NONGSTOIN ORDER Under the approval conveyed vide No. DSEL/EL/GA/PAY/3/2015/32, Dt. 17.2.2016 from the Director of School Education and Literacy Meghalaya, Shillong, Shri Blandar Syiemlieh, BA passed is hereby allowed to continue as an officiating Assistant Teacher at Kyrdum Govt. Lower Primary School, in a pay scale of Rs. 17.2.2016 from the Director of School Education and Literacy Meghalaya, Shillong, Shri Blandar Syiemlieh, BA passed is hereby allowed to continue as an officiating Assistant Teacher at Kyrdum Govt. Lower Primary School, in a pay scale of Rs. 9200-230-10810-EB-300-13510-410-18020/- per month for the period of 59 (fifty nine) days with effect from 18.02.2016 in the vacant post vice Shri H. Nonglang retired. The office order vide Memo No. DIN/PE/APPT- 7/99-2000/1157-61, dt. 27-07-1999 stands cancelled. Sd/- Shri E. Marngar I/c Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin. Memo No. SDSEON/O/APPT-164/2015/3939-42 Dated: Nongstoin, the 18th February, 2016 Copy to: 1. The Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Treasury Officer, Nongstoin Treasury, Nongstoin, for information and necessary action. 3. Shri Blandar Syiemlieh, for information and necessary action. 4. Officer Order File. Sd/- I/c Sub-divisional School Education Officer, Nongstoin" 7. On bare perusal of the said order, it is understood that instead of considering the regularisation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has taken a divergent view best known to him and directed to break the service of the petitioner intentionally without any reason which is purely a discrimination and injustice caused against the principle of natural justice and equity. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18th February, 2016 is not tenable and is hereby quashed and the service of the petitioner is to be counted from the date he was serving i.e. 27-07-1999 and respondent No. 2 is further directed to regularise the service of the petitioner within 2(two) weeks. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.