1

THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAY A

WP(C). No. 150 of 2015

Shri Banbit Roy Sohlang

S/o Late R. Gatpoh,

R/o New Hill, Jowai,

West Jaintia Hills District,

Meghalaya.

… Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The State of Meghalaya,

Represented by the Secretary,

Education Department to the Govt.

Of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. The Director of Higher and

Technical Education, Govt. of

Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. The Chairman, Meghalaya Public

Service Commission, Meghalaya,

Shillong.

4. The Inspector of School,

East Jaintia Hills District, Jowai.

5. The Principal,

Jowai Public School,

Meghalaya.

6. Smti. Deisa Cara Laloo,

Asstt. Mistress

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

7. Smti. Jahari R. Marak,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

8. Smti. Engida Mary Laloo

Jowai Public School, Jowai.

9. Smti. A. Hynniewta,

Shillong Public School, Shillong.

10. Smti. Jennyline Laloo,

Tura Public School.

11. Smti. Evanrilyn Sawain,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

2

12. Smti. Rachna Dohling,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

13. Shri. P. Mangara War Sohlang

Jowai Public School, Shillong.

14. Smti Derdrie D.Dkhar

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

15. Smti. Shelley A. Deingdoh,

Pine Mount School.

16. Smti. Melarika Warjri,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

17. Smti. Angelina Sohliya,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

18. Smti. Naphibanoi Warjri,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

19. Smti. Sophia Shylla,

Jowai Public School, Shillong.

20. Smti. Mona R. Lyngdoh

Shillong Public School, Shillong.

21. Smti Supriya L.Swer,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

22. Smti. Arimeka Chynret,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

23. Smti Mebalajer Shullai,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

24. Shri. N.Passah,

Jowai Public School, Jowai.

25. Smti Arridapha Shullai,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

26. Smti Mebalaker Warjri,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

27. Smti Mayorita Nongkynrih,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

28. Smti. Connie Marbaniang,

Pine Mount School, Shillong.

3

29. Smti. F. Syiemlieh,

Shillong Public School, Shillong.

30. Smti. M.Shaingshai,

Jowai Public School, Jowai.

….Respondents

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.SEN

For the petitioner : S.Thapa, Adv.

For the respondents : Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee, GA

Mr. B.Khyriem, Adv.

Date of hearing : 08.06.2017

Date of Judgment : 08.06.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S.Thapa, learned counsel on behalf of

the petitioner as well as Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA

on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that:

“This is an application under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus and/or certiorari and/or

any other writs/orders/directions etc of

like nature assailing the impugned

action of the Respondents in denying the

Petitioner his seniority from the date of

joining of service against the principle of

service jurisprudence as well as the

directives of the Hon’ble Gauhati High

Court, Shillong passed in WP(C) No. 432

(SH) 2002.

4

Being aggrieved by such illegal

and arbitrary action of the Respondents

in not according Petitioner’s seniority

from the date of joining, the humble

Petitioner is approaching this Hon’ble

Court for redressal of his genuine

grievances.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.Thapa

submits that the petitioner joined his service on 21-05-

2001 as officiating teacher and he was terminated from

service in the year 2002. Petitioner was re-appointed

again on 15-11-2002 only for a period of 89 days w.e.f.

16-11-2002. The petitioner then challenged the said

action of the respondents before the Hon’ble Gauhati High

Court, Shillong Bench and on the basis of the judgment

passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong

Bench, petitioner sat for the selection process conducting

by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission. Thereafter,

on the recommendation of the Meghalaya Public Service

Commission, petitioner was regularised on 08-04-2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

the respondents themselves in Annexure-12 of the writ

petition recommended for necessary regularisation of the

petitioner’s service from the date of joining i.e. 21-05-

2001, but no action was taken till date by the

respondents, hence the petitioner approached this Court

and prayed that direction may be issued to maintain the

seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial

joining.

5

4. In reply to that, Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA

referred to the appointment letter which is at Annexure-4,

page 27 of the writ petition and submits that in t he

appointment letter itself, condition is put that his

seniority will not be considered from the date of his initial

appointment i.e. 21-05-2001. Hence, petitioner is not

entitled for the seniority from his initial appointment.

Learned State counsel also relied in the judgment passed

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao

vrs State of Karnataka and Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 624

para 23 .

5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the parties, I perused the judgment

passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong

Bench in WP(C) No. 432 (SH) 2002 , dated 24-04-2008

wherein it is clear that initially the petitioner was

appointed illegally without following the procedure and

norms, however, that was not his fault. The Hon’ble

Gauhati High Court,Shillong Bench in the judgment

passed in WP(C) No. 432 (SH) 2002, dated 24-04-2008 at

para 5 made the following observation:

“5. I have given my anxious

consideration on the aforesaid

submissions of the learned counsel for

the parties. The fact remains that the

petitioner was appointed on the basis of

an advertisement issued by the Director

of Higher and Technical Education and

he was appointed after going through

the necessary selection process at the

Directorate level. The appointment letter

6

of the petitioner indicates that he was

appointed on officiating basis. If the post

in question is to be filled up through the

selection process of the MPSC there

appears irregularities in the

appointment of the petitioner. However,

the petitioner is not to be blamed for the

purpose. The authorities have

favourably considered the case of the

petitioner and referred his case to the

Government for consi deration of

regularization. But no such decision has

been taken as yet. In view of above fact

situation, this writ petition is disposed of

with the direction that the respondent

authorities are at liberty to advertise the

post to be filled-up after selection by the

MPSC and in accordance with Rules and

in the event of mak ing such

advertisement, the petitioner would also

be entitled to apply for the same. If in

the meantime, the petitioner has crossed

the age bar the authorities shall not

reject his application on this count. The

authorities shall also favourably

consider the period of service rendered

by him and experience earned by him in

the post. Till the aforesaid process if

completed, the service of the petitioner

shall not be disturbed.”

6. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench in

the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 432 (SH) 2002, dated

24-04-2008 disposed of writ petition by directing the

respondent authorities to advertise the post and fill up

the same after selection by the MPSC in accordance with

the Rules and in the event of making such advertisement,

petitioner should be given an opportunity to face the

selection process incase he is over-age. It is further

observed in the said judgment that petitioner’s service

and experience should also be taken into consideration.

7

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao vrs

State of Karnataka and Anr. (1986) 4SCC 624 para

23 made it clear that seniority can therefore be “reckoned

only with reference to the date of regularization of service

and the date of promotion.” Para 23 of the said judgment

is reproduced herein below:

“ 23. Yet another infirmity in the

case of the appellant is that he claims a

right of placement in a promotional post

at the very commencement of his

service. When the appellant’s services

were regularised in 1967 he was placed

in the category of Labour Inspector and

it is only in 1982 he has been promoted

to the post of Senior Inspector of Labour.

His seniority can therefore be reckoned

only with reference to the date of

regularization of service and the date of

his promotion viz March 1, 1982 as

Senior Labour Inspector. On the basis of

relevant materials, he has been

assigned serial Number. 99. By no

stretch of imagination can the appellant

claim seniority along with the

transferred officers Varadha Bhat,

Umanath Rao and Venkataramana in

the final seniority list because they were

holding regular posts on a higher scale

of pay even on November 1, 1956 when

the Mysore State was formed. Being a

regular appointee in 1967 and a

promotee to the senior post only in 1982

the appellant has no right whatever to

claim seniority along with the officers

transferred from Madras State. We,

therefore, find all the contentions of the

appellant to be without merit or

substance. The High Court has rightly

dismissed the writ appeal and this

appeal too deservedly fails.”

7. After hearing the submissions advanced by the

learned counsels for the parties and scanning the

8

Annexures discussed above, the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench as well as

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the

considered view that the petitioner is entitled for his

seniority from the date of his regularization and not from

the date of his initial appointment i.e. 21-05-2001. The

respondents are directed to look into the seniority of the

petitioner in the light of this judgment and the judgment

passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. With this observation and direction, writ petition is

dismissed and stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

S.Rynjah