B NAROLA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been engaged as Work Charged Lower Division Assistant in Fazl Ali College, Mokokchung, w.e.f. 15.9.1994 and working as such till date, by the present writ petition is challenging the decision of the Government of Nagaland in the Department of Higher Education approving the proposal for engagement of the respondent No.4 as the L.D. Assistant on temporary basis against the vacancy caused due to retirement of the regular incumbent Smt. Moalemla, who has been granted invalid pension and which decision has been conveyed by the Deputy Secretary of the said Department to the Director of Higher Education vide communication dated 14.3.2007 and also the consequential order of appointment dated 27.3.2007 issued by the Additional Director and Head of the Department of Higher Education appointing the said respondent as L.D. Assistant in the said college against the said vacancy, purely on temporary basis subject to termination with 1(one) month notice from the either side. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the State respondents and its officials to consider her case for regularization in service pursuant to the Government's policy decision as reflected in the office memorandum dated 22.9.2004 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.

(2.) Heard Mr. Wati Jamir, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.S. Jamir, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Pongener, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit filed by her and also the office memorandums dated 26.2.2001 and 22.9.2004 issued by the Chief Secretary as well as the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, respectively, has submitted that since the Government of Nagaland has taken a policy decision for regularisation of services of work charged employees against 50% of the regular vacancies in the respective cadre, the authority ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation as L.D. Assistant against the vacancy caused due to retirement of Smt. Moalemla, but the Government of Nagaland as well as the Director has appointed the respondent No.4 on temporary basis, even though vide office memorandum dated 26.2.2001 such temporary appointment has been banned and in terms of the office memorandum dated 22.9.2004 the remaining 50% of the regular vacancy is required to be filled up by following the due process of recruitment. It has been submitted that the appointment of the respondent No.4 has not preceded by any selection and in complete violation of the office memorandums dated 26.2.2001 and 22.9.2004. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that while setting aside the order of appointment of the respondent No.4 and also the approval granted by the Government, which has been communicated vide communication dated 14.3.2007, the State respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in service pursuant to the policy decision and the scheme formulated for regularisation of the work charged employees as reflected in the office memorandum dated 22.9.2004.