AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter is substantially similar to WP(C) No. 403 of 2025, and other connected writ petitions, wherein this Court by an order dated 21.08.2026, had directed for consideration of the case of the petitioners for regularization, if permissible. The learned counsel has referred to the List annexed at Annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein the petitioner’s name under Resubelpara Sub-Division, appears at Sl. No. 7. He submits that as the same List had been relied upon by this Court, in passing the earlier orders, the same consideration be given to the writ petitioner.
Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, has submitted that it is not disputed that the order would apply, but however what should be kept in mind is that the writ petitioner has served only for 3 years 5 months 23 days, before the taking over by the State Government the services of the District Council Schools, whereas the qualifying service is 5 years.
As the earlier order has been passed by this Court which effectively addresses the grievance of the writ petitioner, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated 21.08.2026 rendered in WP(C) No. 403 of 2025 and other connected matters, especially at Para-10 thereof, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“10.Without further prolonging the matter, it is thus directed that the State respondents consider the cases of the petitioners preferably within a period of 4(four) months from the date of this order. The writ petitioners if they so desire can also present fresh individual representations before the authorities for consideration along with a copy of this order, and on presentation thereof, the State respondents shall dispose the matter as per the directions given hereinabove, within the stipulated time.
As ordered above, the matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.