PULOTO K V SEMA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. None appears for the respondent No. 3. On 09 -04 -2015, this Court had passed an order that if the respondent No. 3 is not represented, case shall proceed ex -parte against him. Accordingly, this case is taken up for final disposal in absence of respondent No.3.

(2.) MR . A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by an advertisement dated 13 -06 -2011, applications were invited from interested candidates for appointment as Inspector of Industries on contract basis. On the basis of such advertisement, the petitioner along with others appeared for the selection process and by a letter dated 29 -06 -2011, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Screening Committee, the Government gave its approval to the respondent No. 2 to issue appointment order to the 10 successful candidates wherein, the petitioner appears at Serial No. 7. Accordingly, an order dated 30 -06 -2011 was issued whereby the petitioner was appointed to the vacant post of Inspector of Industries on contract basis for a period of one year. The last extension order of the petitioner was by an order dated 30 -06 -2012 wherein the petitioner's contract services was extended for another period of one year with effect from 01 -07 - 2012 or until the recruitment process is completed by the NPSC or whichever is earlier under the same terms and conditions. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 by communication dated 28 -05 -2013 had forwarded application for extension of the contract appointment in respect of the Inspectors of Industries to the respondent No. 1. In the said communication, the respondent No. 2 had further remarked that the petitioner is found to be irregular and not sincere in his duty and therefore, no extension may be given to the petitioner along with three other Inspectors of Industries. Thereafter, by a letter dated 16 - 08 -2013, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Industries and Commerce Department conveyed approval of the Government for extension of contract service for another period of one year with effect from 01 -07 -2013 in respect of seven contract Inspectors of Industries. Therein, the name of the petitioner did not figure. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved for non -extension of his service, the petitioner through his counsel submitted a legal notice dated 17 -09 -2013. The respondent No. 2 replied to the legal notice dated 17 -09 - 2013 by letter dated 01 -10 -2013. On receipt of the reply to the legal notice, the petitioner was shocked to come across some allegations made against him stating that he has not performed any duty nor attended office during the entire period of the previous Ministry i.e. 30 -06 -2011 to 27 -02 -2013. The petitioner had also submitted letter a dated 07 -04 -2014 to the respondent No. 2 seeking copy of the Attendance Register from 30 -06 -2011 to 30 -06 -2013. However, as the Attendance Register for the relevant periods were found missing, the petitioner could obtain only the Attendance Register for the month of January to June, 2013. In the said Attendance Register, the petitioner who appears at Serial No. 2 is seen to have been regular in his duties and the allegations made by the respondent No. 2 in his reply to the legal notice of the petitioner is found to be not correct.

(3.) MR . A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 13 -02 -2014, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the order dated 12 -02 -2014 by which he is shown to have been terminated from service with effect from 30 -06 -2013. It is further submitted that prior to the termination order dated 12 -02 -2014, the respondent No. 2 had written to the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 06 -02 -2014 proposing for appointment of the private respondent No.3 against the post already held by the petitioner. He further submits that the termination of the petitioner was pre -mediated inasmuch as, the State respondents had already taken a decision to appoint the private respondent No. 3 to the post already held by the petitioner as early as 06 -02 -2014 i.e much ahead from the date of the termination order dated 12 -02 -2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the termination is retrospective inasmuch as, the petitioner is shown to have been terminated with effect from 30 -06 -2013 by the impugned order dated 12 -02 -2014. Subsequently, after the issuance of the impugned termination order dated 12 -02 -2014, the State respondents by an order dated 18 -02 -2014 had appointed the private respondent No. 3 on deputation to the post held by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the State respondent has issued an O.M dated 21 -07 -2004 wherein, the procedure for filling up of vacancies on deputation has been laid down. The order appointing the private respondent No. 3 on deputation to the post already held by the petitioner was also done in violation of the said O.M dated 21 -07 -2004. That being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination order should be set aside and quashed.