JANARDHAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. KC Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. K. Khan, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) It appears that the case of the petitioner has a very chequered history. It is stated that about 25(twenty five) years ago, the petitioner was declared to have passed the interview conducted by the District Selection Committee (for short DSC) for recruitment to the post of driver in the Meghalaya (C) Secretariat vide office order dated 22-06-1987. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as driver as early as 22-06-1987, but for the reasons not known to the petitioner by an office order dated 30-10-1987, instead of appointing him as a regular driver, had appointed him as a casual driver w.e.f. 17-10-1987.

(3.) Later on, the petitioner was again appointed as a casual driver vide office order dated 17-3-1993 at the Scale of Pay of Rs. 975-1550/- P.M plus other allowances as admissible w.e.f. 20-2-1993. After serving a considerable number of years as driver, the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f 2-2-1995 vide office order dated 3-2-1985. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 165 (SH) of 1999. The High Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 24-3-2003 by quashing the termination order dated 2/2/1995 with the observations that the termination order was not a termination simplicities but one with stigma.