ROBERT D. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner has been serving as Assistant Chemist in the Directorate of Mineral Resources, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong for the last 16 (sixteen) years since his appointment on 17th September, 2002, and his grievance is that in spite of his long service, his case which has been taken up for consideration for regularization is yet to be decided. As such, the prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to issue to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization.

(2.) Mr. S. Wahlang, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a second round of litigation before this Court and that by the earlier order dated 15th March, 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 33 of 2018, the respondents were directed to address the representation of the petitioner for regularization. He submits that even after disposal of the representation though steps have been taken by the Department for the process of regularization, the same is yet to yield any result. As such, he prays that his case be considered expeditiously within a timeframe, inasmuch as, even for the post of Chemist which has been advertised he has become over-aged, for which he has also assailed before this Court by way of the WP(C) No. 211 of 2018, which is still pending. He lastly submits that unless the respondents consider his case he will continue to be deprived of the due service benefits of a regular employee.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was selected and appointed only to serve on an officiating capacity and there is no permanency attached to the appointment. He does not dispute that the respondent No. 4 has taken steps for forwarding the case of the petitioner to the concerned department for regularization and he further submits that the same is still pending. The learned GA has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-VIII which is a letter dated 14th November, 2018 issued by the respondent No. 3 which is recommendatory in nature for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization. He further submits that the decision is yet to be arrived at by the concerned authorities.