Helingstar Pyngrope vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

The writ petitioner is before this Court assailing a termination order dated 03-11-2023, whereby he was terminated from his contractual post as Multitasking Assistant in the Project Management Unit, Swachh Bharat Mission (U) 2.0 Shillong.

Ms. B.Sun, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted and taken this Court through a series of orders starting from 19-02-2001 to show that the petitioner had been serving under the respondents, though admittedly not against a sanctioned post, but purely on a contractual and temporary basis. Learned counsel submits that the only consideration that the writ petitioner seeks is that having put in 23 long years of service since his initial officiating appointment, the respondents are at least liable to examine his case if he can be accommodated against any suitable contractual post taking into account his long years of experience.

Ms. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 has submitted that no right has accrued to the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, firstly it is not a continuous appointment and secondly, the writ petitioner in the course of his temporary appointment, had entered a contract which has since expired. She therefore submits that no relief will be available to the writ petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the materials as placed. It is correct that the petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned post nor had served continuously against a regular post. A perusal of the materials shows that the writ petitioner was terminated from time to time, and from a Typist he had also served as a Data Entry Operator and as a Multitasking Assistant, all on temporary/contractual basis. The engagement of the writ petitioner being purely temporary/contractual, therefore no mandamus can issue to direct the respondents to consider him for permanent absorption or employment. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is a mercy petition, the respondents are at liberty to examine as to whether the writ petitioner can be accorded any sort of contractual appointment in view of the acute financial crisis he is facing.

Ms. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA, on this observation of the Court prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to obtain necessary instructions.

List this matter on 25-04-2025.