PAULAO KONYAK Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Kevi Angami, learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 prays for passing over the matter for one week. Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is urgency involved in this matter therefore, this may be passed over for the day at the most.

(2.) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Information Assistant on fixed pay of Rs.3500/- PM, by order dated 30/9/2003 issued by the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations w.e.f.1/10/2003, vide order No.PUB/E-4/2000(Pt). The appointment was purely on temporary basis and, it was as per the decision of High Power Committee. Since then, the petitioner continued in service, till one day, when he came to learn that his service was terminated w.e.f.1/9/2013 vide order No.DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014/409, dated 6/9/2013 of the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.206(K)/2013 before this High Court and this High Court by order dated 26/3/2014 quashed and set aside the impugned order/termination order dated 6/9/2013. In compliance of the order of High Court, an order dated 20/5/2014, No. DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014/734 was issued by which the petitioner was reinstated in service. The same was, later, superseded by another order No. DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014, dated Nil, May 2014.

(3.) While the petitioner was serving as such, the respondent No.3 namely, Mr. P. Tepekrovi Kiso, who was also initially appointed as Information Assistant, on fixed pay of Rs.3500, vide order No.PUB/B-4/2000(pt), dated 2/12/2003, but junior to him, was regularized vide order No. DIPR/E- 40/2013/772, dated 3/6/2014. After coming to know the regularization of the respondent No.3, the petitioner, submitted a representation dated 23/8/2015, before the competent authority, seeking regularization of his service and, the same was forwarded by the DPRO Mon, by his letter no.PUB/MON/ESTT- 17/2015-16/114, dated 25/8/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner once again submitted a fresh representation on 13/10/2015, for regularization of his service, after he came to know that one of the incumbent of the post of Information Assistant was going to retire on 30/9/2015. The same was forwarded by the DPRO Mon, vide his letter No.PUB/MON/ESTT-17/103, dated 14/10/2015. However, ignoring his representation, one Mr. H. Vihepu Sumi, respondent No.4 was appointed to the post on contract basis, by order No.DIPR/E-40/2014-15/487, dated 3/12/2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, once again, submitted a representation dated 11/12/2015, for regularization of his service.