Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 232 (MEG)

Pynskhem Nongbri v. State of Meghalaya

2022-08-31

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking reinstatement of the services of the writ petitioners, by setting aside the impugned termination order dated 22.01.2019, passed by the respondent No. 4. 2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that, the 3 petitioners herein, were allowed to officiate against the vacant posts of Sectional Assistant in the Public Works Department, Government of Meghalaya, in 2009, for a period of 3 months initially, and which were extended from time to time for a period of 3 months each, which continued till 18.11.2015, when their officiating services was terminated. Against the said termination order, the petitioners had approached this Court, by way of WP(C) No. 91 of 2016, and by order dated 30.07.2018, this Court directed the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause and after hearing the petitioners by a reasoned order dated 22.01.2019, confirmed the termination order and disposed of the matter. The petitioners being aggrieved are therefore once again before this Court, impugning the order dated 22.01.2019. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the service rendered by the petitioners is public service, which should be governed by statutory rules not by contractual service, which is at the whims and fancies of the respondents, contrary to the rules of Natural Justice, and without any due consideration to the long service of over six years of the petitioners. It is also argued that in spite of the order dated 30.07.2018, passed in WP(C) No. 91 of 2016, whereby the earlier termination order was set aside, the petitioners were never given benefit of the same, and instead show-cause was issued and the termination order passed. 4. An elaborate list of authorities has been presented by the learned counsel before this Court, in support of the case, in the context of temporary appointments. However, emphasis has been made on a recent case namely Ranbir Singh vs. S.K. Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 27.04.2022, had directed that the claims of those workers who were found to meet the conditions of eligibility, should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption. of India & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 27.04.2022, had directed that the claims of those workers who were found to meet the conditions of eligibility, should be resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption. Learned counsel submits that in the event, the petitioners cannot be considered any further for re-instatement, at least they should be compensated for the long years of service rendered by them. 5. Learned AAG on behalf of the respondents submits that no case has been made out by the petitioners, as it is a settled legal principle that in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, these types of appointments are not protected and can be validly terminated. It is submitted that, there is no scope to demand regularization as the petitioners were appointed dehors the rules, without any advertisement and such appointment does not confer any legally enforceable right to the petitioners. The authorities placed in support of the respondent's case are: i) State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty ( 2011 (3) SCC 436 ). ii) Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan ( 2003 (3) SCC 485 ). 6. It is further submitted that, unless the initial recruitment is regularized through a prescribed agency, in this case, the District Selection Committee, there is no scope for a demand for regularization. It is also submitted that, vide letter No. PW/CE/Estt./ 89/2015/101 dated 09.01.2018, the petitioners were re-appointed as Sectional Assistants temporarily for a period of one year, which was communicated to the petitioners, vide office order dated 16.01.2018, after which the services were terminated. Learned AAG then reiterates the contention that, the services being purely temporary, the petitioners have no legally enforceable right, and as such, there is no question that the termination has infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is noted that, there are two issues that need to be considered in the instant writ petition which are, whether the petitioners have been wrongfully terminated, and whether they have acquired any vested right to be considered for regularization. 8. It is not disputed that the appointments were purely officiating arrangements made by the respondents against the vacant post of Sectional Assistants. 8. It is not disputed that the appointments were purely officiating arrangements made by the respondents against the vacant post of Sectional Assistants. It is also on record that, these appointments were for a period of three months at a time, which by necessary implication means that on the expiry of such period, the appointment stands terminated. As noted earlier, the petitioners being aggrieved with the last extension, which was to conclude on 18.11.2015, had approached this Court, which by order dated 30.07.2018, directed that the petitioners be heard. In compliance thereto, the petitioners were heard, and by the impugned order, the claim for restoration of services and regularization to the said post were rejected, and the earlier notice of termination was confirmed. 9. It is settled law that, no person who does not go through a regular selection procedure or is regularized in a post by a competent authority on certain conditions being met, can be said to be clothed with any legally enforceable rights to seek redressal for non-continuance or termination of services. Elements of seeking the application of the Principles of Natural Justice, and a right to be heard by operation of settled law, is not available to such appointments such as, in the case of the petitioners. Though, this Court had earlier directed, vide the order dated 30.07.2018 in WP(C) No. 91 of 2016, that the petitioners be heard, in the considered view of this Court, the Principles of Natural Justice, in the case of temporary appointments may apply only in these following instances such as, when the services are sought to be terminated before the term of employment expires, when the termination is on the basis of misconduct, instead of being a simple discharge, thereby casting a stigma, and when the termination operates as a punishment and also results in the denial of due benefits. 10. None of the situations as set out above are present, as the case of the petitioners is of a purely temporary officiating arrangements that had been discontinued. In the impugned order itself, it had been recorded that, the petitioners were re-appointed temporarily as Sectional Assistants for a period of one-year w.e.f. on 16.01.2018, which was rejected by them. The opportunity of hearing granted, being explicitly on the orders of this Court, has in fact accorded the petitioners with an additional benefit that is not normally allowed in such cases. The opportunity of hearing granted, being explicitly on the orders of this Court, has in fact accorded the petitioners with an additional benefit that is not normally allowed in such cases. 11. Though, a prayer has been made verbally for consideration of award of compensation, for the long years of service rendered by the petitioners, the same apart from not being part of the pleadings, is without any basis and the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners will have no application to the instant case. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, no case has been made out for restoration or regularization of the services of the petitioners, to warrant any interference with the impugned order, and the writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.