PYNSKHEM NONGBRI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a useless appeal, completely vexatious and without any basis. At the outset, the manner in which the appeal has been conducted has to be indicated. Documents not relied upon before the Single Bench have been sought to be picked out of the pocket and placed before the Court, sometimes even without a second copy and without reference to the other side. The facetious contention in such regard is that Counsel representing the appellants may not have been before the Single Bench. This is not the manner in which a matter is conducted in a court of law, far less before a Division Bench of the High Court.

(2.) The matter pertains to the regularisation of certain personnel who were officiating purely on a temporary basis and who were engaged for a period of three months at a time.

(3.) The essential facts would be evident from paragraph 8 of the impugned order dated August 31, 2022: