GRACEFIELD K. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases are unfortunate cases. Though the petitioners have been in continuous service for the last about 26 years, their status as to whether they are regular employees or not is still debatable. They are now filing these writ petitions to direct the respondent authorities to count their seniority with effect from 1.4.1994 when they were purportedly confirmed to the respective posts held by them and to fix their seniority accordingly. To simplify the controversy, I will first deal with WP(C) No. 80(SH) of 2010, decide the same and attempt to apply my decision thereon to the remaining writ petitions. In W.P. (C) No. 80(SH) of 2010, the petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.A. on ad-hoc basis against a sanctioned post vide the order dated 10.2.1986. As the District Selection Committee ("DSC") was yet to be constituted at that time, various Departments of the State Government used to adopt different procedures to appoint their staff which later gave rise to certain anomalies in the matter of fixing their inter-se seniority and regularization According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities, therefore, issued the Office memorandum dated 22.6.1989 towards that end. It is the case of the petitioner that it was in accordance with this Office Memorandum that she was confirmed as permanent employee with effect from the date of her appointment and against the vacancy indicated against the sanctioned post vide Serial No. 13 of the Office Order dated 19.4.3002 with effect from 1.4.1994. However, much to my chagrin, while she was expecting promotion, she received the communication dated 30.7.2007 issued by the respondent 3 notifying the tentative inter-se seniority list excluding her name therein contrary to the statement of seniority list wherein she found a place in Serial No. 6 with her date of regularization as 10.2.1986. The Chairman of the DSC by his letter dated 7.9.2009 also informed the Under Secretary, Personnel (B) Department, Government of Meghalaya, that the petitioner had already been confirmed in her post by the Forest Department and asked him to clarify as whether regularization of her service was still required.

(2.) In spite of this, the respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 17.12.2009 stopped the increment of the petitioner on the ground that her service was not yet regularized thereby adversely affecting her service. It is contended by the petitioner that as she has been confirmed with effect from 1.4.1994 against a sanctioned post, she is entitled to count her seniority with effect from such date. Aggrieved by the decision of the State-respondents, she filed a representation to the State-respondents on 19.8.2009 to restore her seniority with effect from the aforesaid date of confirmation. When no action was taken by the State-respondents, she approached this Court in WP(C) No. 21 (SH) of 2010 and this Court by the order dated 19.2.2010 directed the State-respondents to consider her representation in the light of the annexures filed by her. The respondent No. 3 by the order dated 13.3.2010 rejected her representation by holding that "she is still an ad-hoc appointee yet to be approved by Government and regularised by the DSC". This prompted her to file this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.3.2010, the gradation list dated 18.3.2010 and for counting her seniority with effect from 1.4.1994.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. It is their case that in anticipation of the approval by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Meghalaya, the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills Division (respondent 3) allowed the petitioner to officiate as temporary LDA with the condition that she might be discharged without notice and without assigning any reason thereof. There is no record to indicate that such approval was accorded by the Chief Conservator of Forest nor is there anything on record to suggest that she was allowed to hold the post in a substantive capacity. The DSC was constituted as early as 26.11.1976 when a notification to this effect was issued, and it is wrong to say that such Committee was constituted only after 1987. The objective of issuing the said Office memorandum was to regularize any appointment made under Regulation 3(f) of Meghalaya Public Service Commission (LOFs) Regulations, 1972 and to regularize any appointment made by the various appointing authorities on ad-hoc basis without recommendation by the MPSC or the respective District Selection Committee vide the Circular dated 22.6.1989. The petitioner was inadvertently confirmed as LDA w.e.f. 1.4.1994 oblivious of the fact she was not recommended by the DSC, which is in contravention of the Rules and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms and was, therefore, declared irregular in the letter dated 19.11.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Admn. Reforms (B) addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest.