NAFEES MARBANIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had been working in the office of the respondent No. 4 on officiating/temporary basis since January, 1999 till 2017, though with breaks, against temporary vacancies caused from time to time. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had made a representation for consideration of regularization as he was serving for a long duration of almost 18 years, coupled with the fact that the respondent No. 4 had recommended the petitioner for consideration for regularization. However, as the same was not acceded to by the other respondents, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this instant writ application.

(2.) Mr. L. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on officiating/temporary basis as L.D.A. in the office of the respondent No. 4 on 29th January, 1999 for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner's appointment was renewed from time to time though not in the same post but against vacancies that arose periodically, and in this manner, the petitioner had put in service of more than 18 years against various posts such as L.D.A, Peon, Assistant Teacher, Chowkidar and driver and lastly was officiating as Peon in the office of the respondent No. 4. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the long service of more than 18 years, the petitioner had made a representation but the respondents did not consider it and rejected the same vide order dated 15th June, 2017 (Annexure-8). He therefore prays that in view of the long service, the petitioner may be considered for regularization or alternative to allow to compete in the selection process to be conducted by the District Selection Committee to fill up vacancies.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA on behalf of all the respondents submits that the petitioner's appointment throughout his career has been on officiating/temporary basis and was not a regular appointee at any point of time. He further submits that no service record of the petitioner has been maintained which substantiates the fact that the petitioner is not an appointee against a vacant sanctioned post. He further submits that the appointment accorded to the petitioner was against those temporary vacancies which occurred on the absence of regular employees from time to time and that he never served against a regular vacancy. He also submits that appointment for regular posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV are to be filled up by the District Selection Committee as per the need of various Government Departments, wherein eligible candidates are allowed to participate and are selected in order of merit. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner should have put himself up for selection if he wanted to be appointed in a regular post, which however he has not done. He submits therefore, the writ petition being without merit the same be dismissed.