ANDREW H. KHONGLAM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application before this Court has been filed by the petitioner who is serving as an Assistant Chemist, in the Mining and Geology Department, Government of Meghalaya for consideration for promotion to the vacant posts of Chemist, which exists in the said Department. The case of the petitioner as set forth, is that in the year 2015, 4(four) posts of Chemist in the Department fell vacant and as per the convention and norm, the vacant posts were required to be filled up by promotion from the eligible Assistant Chemists on the basis of seniority. However, from the said 4(four) vacant posts, 2(two) posts were advertised for direct recruitment vide advertisement dated. 26.04.2016, issued by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission and for the other 2(two) posts, promotion was made from the Assistant Chemists in order of seniority, which according to the petitioner has deprived him of promotion to the post as 2(two) other Assistant Chemists were senior to him. Being aggrieved thereby, he is before this Court by way of the instant petition.

(2.) Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the convention and norms followed, in the absence of Rules governing the services in the Department, the post of Chemist was usually filled up by promotion and direct recruitment was only resorted to when there was no Assistant Chemist eligible for promotion. Learned senior counsel submits that therefore the advertisement of the 2 (two) posts of Chemists based on the Draft Service Rules when an eligible candidate was available is unwarranted, and has resulted in the denial of the petitioner to his legitimate expectation for promotion to the post of Chemist. As such, he prays that a mandamus be issued to direct the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner who is eligible in all respects for promotion to the said vacant post.

(3.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that as per the Draft Service Rules, 50% of the vacant posts of Chemist was to be filled up by promotion and the other 50% by direct recruitment and as such when 4(four) posts of Chemist fell vacant, 2 (two) were advertised and 2(two) posts were filled up by promotion. He further submits that it is not a fact that on earlier instances there has been no direct recruitment to the post of Chemist. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition which shows that in the year 1982, and a few other instances thereafter direct recruitment, was resorted to the post of Chemist by the Department. He further submits that the Draft Service Rules are yet to be finalized and whatever proceedings conducted earlier was based on executive directions and exigency.