(1.) On 12th October, 2020, this Court had passed the following order;
(2.) The answering Respondents states that the Petitioners are regular appointees and that the advertisement dated 26.08.2020 is for contractual appointment. The answering respondent has not advertised the post invoking the Rules, 2007, rather it is a contractual advertisement for meeting limited administrative exigencies. At this stage the Writ Petition is not maintainable in as much as, it is not the cause of action of the Petitioners being regular appointees, whereby, they have been deprived of the promotional avenues vide advertisement dated 26.08.2020 which is a temporary advertisement invoked by the Respondent no. 1 and 2 for direct recruitment to the post of CDPO. This advertisement is not for promotion to the post of CDPO and the Respondent no. 3 has yet to invoke the said Rules, 2007 recommending fresh candidates to fill the post of CDPO's on regular appointment. The answering respondent states that no cause of action has arisen to the Writ Petitioners for invoking writ jurisdiction since they have failed to prove that they have been deprived of promotional avenues under the rules because of the advertisement dated 26.08.2020, in other words the Petitioners cannot claim as a regular appointee to the post of CDPO under direct recruitment which is actually for contractual appointment. Hence the Writ Petition is premature since the relevant rules has not been invoked by the State Respondents and appointment under the relevant rules to the post of CDPO has yet to be advertised or made by the Respondent No. 3."
(3.) The specific averment made in paragraph 1 of the report in the form of an affidavit, as quoted above, makes it clear that the impugned advertisement dated 26th August, 2020, is purely for the purpose of contractual appointment subject to termination upon recommendation of regular candidates. Considering this stand taken on behalf of the concerned respondent, being the respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners have no existing legal right, which has been infringed upon. However, the statements made in paragraph 1, as reproduced hereinbefore, do not indicate anywhere as to what would be the period of such contractual appointment. If the contractual appointment is being construed by the concerned respondent authority as a purely temporary one and such appointment is subject to termination upon recommendation of regular candidates, it is incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to specify the tenure of such appointment. The reason is, in the garb of a contractual appointment for the purpose of'meeting limited administrative exigencies', no person can be engaged in the concerned post for an indefinite period of time, which would lead to a situation where the writ petitioners - who are regular appointees - would lose their prospects of being considered for the post - in - question once the 2007 Rules are invoked. There is also another aspect of the matter. Contractual engagements for'meeting limited administrative exigencies' cannot take away the substantive right of the writ petitioners - who are regular appointees - for being considered for promotion to the post of CDPO once the 2007 Rules come into force. As such, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the respondent No. 2, namely, the Director of Social Welfare Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong, to specify the tenure of those who would be appointed in terms of the advertisement dated 26th August, 2020, for the purpose of'meeting limited administrative exigencies'. This tenure has to be specified by the respondent No. 2 at the time of issuance of appointment letters to those who are likely to be engaged purely on a contractual basis in terms of the advertisement dated 26th August, 2020.