NISHINDRA HAJONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, and also Sri K.S. Kynjing, learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction to the Respondents to allow the writ petitioner to join as Daftori in compliance with the order dated 9th November, 1995 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong, appointing the writ petitioner in the post of Daftori temporarily in the scale of Rs. 820-10-970-15-986-20-1175/- plus usual allowances as admissible under rules with effect from the date of joining and until further orders. In the said writ petition, the petitioner averred that initially he was engaged as a Casual Labourer in the office of the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical) West Garo Hills, Tura, Meghalaya on 7th June 1983. By virtue of a notification dated 19th December, 1994 issued by the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical) West Garo Hills, Tura, Meghalaya, which was despatched on 22nd December, 1994, as in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the entertainment of Muster Roll Labourers engaged was to be discontinued with effect from 1st January, 1995. It is also case of the writ petitioner that on his application to the Executive Engineer, Agricultural Department, Meghalaya Shillong, for his appointment in Grade IV post and for withdrawal of the order of the 22nd December, 1994, he was appointed to the post of Daftori vide order No. AGRI (E) DIR/-367/90/71, dated 9th November, 1995. According to the writ petitioner he has been treated as a Senior Most Muster Roll Menial in the office of the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical), West Garo Hills, Tura, by the Director of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong, wider his order dated 9th November, 1995i, as in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. As soon as the petitioner got the appointment letter, he immediately submitted his joining report to the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical) West Garo Hills Tura, - The Respondent No. 4 herein - but the said Respondent did not allow the petitioner to join in the said post. Being aggrieved by the in action of the Respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Now this Court is to examine as to whether the writ petitioner has a legal right to enforce the performance of a duty by the present Respondents.

(3.) On perusal of the available materials on record, it has been revealed that the Director of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong- the 2nd Respondent - had issued an order on 9th November, 1995 appointing the petitioner as Daftori temporarily, as in Annexure - 6 to the writ petition, and in the said appointment letter, the petitioner has been treated, rather designated, as Senior Most Muster Roll Menial in the office of the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical), West Garo Hills, Tura. In my considered view this order is still in force. It has also, further, been revealed that despite the joining report submitted by the writ petitioner, the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical), West Garo Hills, Tura, did not allow the petitioner to join his post without assigning any reason. After proper application of my mind I am of the view that the Respondents - Particularly the Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 - had failed to perform their legal duty. It is well, settled that "the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue 'directions, orders or writs' so as to enable the High Courts to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. The High Courts have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised its discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." This principle of law finds its place in a decision rendered by the apex Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another Vs. K.S. Jaganathan and another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679. In the instant case also, the competent authority had failed to perform their legal duties in asmuch as they failed to implement their own order causing injustice to a poor labourer like the present writ petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petitioner has a legal right to enforce performance of certain duty by virtue of order dated 9th November, 1995, as in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, by the 2nd and 4th Respondents herein - namely the Director of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong and the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Mechanical) West Garo Hills, Tura.