High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 06 MEG CK 0358

Dale-Mid-Gift Marbaniang vs Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council & 2 Ors

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 23 June 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Bhattacharjee, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Case (WPC) No. 137 Of 2025 In Writ Petition (C) No. 261 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 324 words

B. Bhattacharjee, J

Heard Mr. L. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

By this application the applicant has prayed for stay of the impugned Office Order No.372 dated 30.05.2025 passed by the opposite party No.4 by which the regularization of service of the applicant as Junior Architect was revoked and he was reverted back as a Contractual Junior Architect.

It transpires from the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties and the materials on record that the applicant was appointed as a Contractual Junior Architect vide Office Memo No.DC.1/21/2023/14(a)/1129 dated 26.10.2023 in pursuant to the advertisement vide Memo No.DC.I/21/2023/5/888 dated 22.08.2023. After completion of almost 1 year of service as a contractual employee, the service of the applicant was regularized as Junior Architect vide Office Order No.724 dated 01.10.2024, on the basis of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC). However, by the impugned Office Order No.372 dated 30.05.2025, the regularization of the applicant as Junior Architect was revoked and he was reverted back as a Contractual Junior Architect. The impugned Office Order, prima facie, does not indicate that the applicant was issued with a notice or provided with any opportunity of hearing before the decision to revoke his regularization as Junior Architect was made. Although, in the impugned Office Order, the regularization of service of the applicant de hors the applicable rule was stated to be the reason for revocation of regularization of service of the applicant, nothing specific has been spelt out to indicate as to what particular aspect of the applicable rule was not adhered to while regularizing the service of the applicant.

In view of the above, at this juncture, it is deemed appropriate to suspend the operation of the impugned Office Order No.372 dated 30.05.2025 till the returnable date.

List this matter along with the main writ petition.