STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. PUSHU KHIAMUNGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a High Court can issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the State or its instrumentality to regularize the service of a person even if he has been appointed on ad hoc or contractual basis without following the relevant recruitment rules and in denial of the State's constitutional obligation to hold every selection process enabling all eligible candidates to participate in the selection process? Whether the High Court, in such a case, must necessarily issue a writ, in the nature of mandamus, if the service of another person, who was similarly appointed had been directed earlier, in another case, to be regularized? These are the two important questions, which this writ appeal has raised.

(2.) BEFORE we answer the questions posed above, we may take note of the material facts, which have given rise to this writ appeal. The respondents herein, who are 22 in number, instituted W. P. (C) No. 147 (K) 2001 seeking directions to be issued to the respondents therein (i. e. , the appellants in this appeal) to regularize the services of the writ petitioners as Stenographer Grade-III in Nagaland (Civil) Secretariat from the date of their respective initial appointment with all consequential benefits, the case of the writ petitioners being, in brief, thus : The petitioners were appointed on contract basis, for a fixed period, as a Stenographer Grade-III in Nagaland (Civil) Secretariat. Their contractual appointments were kept on being extended from time to time with a break in service for day or so; but from the respective dates of their initial appointments, all the petitioners have completed more than five years of service and are, therefore, in terms of the relevant policy of the Government, entitled to regularization of their services.

(3.) THE present appellants, appearing as respondents in the writ petition, resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, thus: The writ petitioners were initially, appointed as substitutes against leave vacancies and on expiry of the leave periods, when the regular employees rejoined their services, the petitioners appointment were brought to an end ; but on the ground of mercy, the writ petitioners were appointed on contractual basis. A contractual appointee is not entitled to be permanently absorbed and their appointments come to an end, when their contract period is terminated or expires. This apart, the writ petitioners are required to satisfy their efficiency in terms of the requirements of their service as Stenographer Grade-III.