AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The petitioner after completing the All India Senior School Certificate Examination from Jawahar Navodya Vidyaya in the year 1996
was looking for a suitable job, in the meanwhile he managed to got himself temporarily appointed to officiate as Lab Assistant in the
Government Boys High School, Mawkhar, Shillong in the year 2002 vide appointment letter dated: 17.10.2002 and thereafter,
whenever temporary vacancy arose in the post of the Lab Assistant in the said school for various reasons, your humble Petitioner was
allowed to work on an officiating basis by different office order/off course showing a break in service. Thereafter the petitioner was
given to understand that the same post would be advertised by the District Selection Committee and the Petitioner would be required
to go through the valid selection process by applying for the same. However, in the case of the Petitioner the contrary has taken place
as the said post was never advertised by the District Selection Committee and in complete violation of procedural law Respondent
No. 4 was given an appointment ostensibly on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, which transpires that the
Respondent No. 4 did not have to go through the usual selection process thus violating the rule laid down for the purpose. Hence this
instant writ petition"".
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner served in a school called ''Government Boys'' Higher Secondary School,
Shillong'' as a Laboratory Assistant at a salary of Rs. 19,370/- per month. The learned counsel also further submits that, initially the petitioner
entered in the service on contractual basis and continued his service for 11(eleven) years on extension from time to time till 2015.
During his service, the school authority used to assure the petitioner that, whenever there will be an exam, he will be allowed to sit for the said
exam to qualify himself permanently for the post, but unfortunately one fine day in the year 2015 a person has been recommended by the District
Selection Committee, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and a new incumbent replaced the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that after
11(eleven) years of service, if the petitioner is thrown out from service in such a manner, then where will he go and how will he earn his livelihood
as well as for his family members. The learned counsel further brought to the notice that the advertisement for the post of Laboratory Assistant was
in the year 2006, therefore, how is it possible that after a lapse of so many years a person has been picked up and recommended in place of the
petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner should be reinstated in the post from where he has been
removed.
In reply to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel appeared along with Mrs. R.M. Pariat,
District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and submits that, the advertisement was made in the year 2006, but the
interview was conducted in the year 2015. The learned State counsel also raised a question as to why the petitioner did not apply for the post and
sat for the interview and he further submits that in response to the verbal instruction of this Court, the petitioner is for the time being accommodated
for the post lying vacant at Sohra on the lumpsum pay of Rs. 15,000/- for 59(fifty nine) days vide order dated 06.03.2016. The content of the
order is reproduced herein below for future ready reference:
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SCHOOL EDUCATION OFFICER : : : EAST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT, SHILLONG
Subject : Appointment of Contractual Post of LDA
Reference : Letter No. DSEL/SEC-G/CC/1/2017/2 Dt. 21.2.2017 from the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya,
Shillong.
O R D E R
In compliance to the Order dt. 16.2.2017 and the verbal instruction of the Hon''ble High Court in connection with the Case No.
WP(C) No. 90/2015, Shri. Manbathewbiang Lyngdoh, is hereby temporarily appointed under contractual basis as L.D.Assistant at
Sohra Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sohra, on the lumpsum pay of Rs. 15,000/- p.m (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only for a period
of 59 (fifty nine) days with a break of 2(two) days i.e. working days.
The officiating appointment is purely temporary and subject to termination at any time without notice and without assigning any reason
thereof.
Sd/-
R.M. Pariat
District School Education Officer
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong"".
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel as well as the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong, Mrs. R.M. Pariat, I am of the opinion that the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong has taken the matter
seriously to accommodate the petitioner on humanitarian ground, which is appreciated. However, the question remains before me is that, what will
happen after 59(fifty nine) days? The District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong is directed not to remove the petitioner
from his service till the interview is conducted and if he passed out successfully, he should be given regular appointment without any hassle, so; that
he and his family members can survive. It is also further directed that, at least 1(one) month before the exam, the petitioner should be informed
about the exam fixed. Besides that, I also observed that, if the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong is so kind
enough to accommodate the petitioner on the lumpsum pay of Rs. 15,000/- she may consider increasing his salary for another Rs. 2000/- to Rs.
3000/- as his original salary was Rs. 19,000/-.
Before I part with this case record, I made it clear that, since the petitioner has already been in service and when he entered the service, he had
requisite age, so his age should not be considered as a bar for sitting in the exam and should be condoned.
With this observation and direction the writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.