AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the State respondents No. 1-5
and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
That the Petitioner was appointed vide Order Memo. No. DSEL/EL/GA/APPT/29/2010/ Pt.88 dated 25.06.2013 as a Statistical
Assistant by Director of School Education and Literacy Meghalaya Shillong and she had been serving in the department continuously
with full satisfaction to the concerned authority and without any complaints from any Respondent authority. That the State
Respondent have appointed other candidates, namely, Smti. Tengchi N. Sangma to the same post where the Petitioner had been
working, presently serving as Statistical Assistant in the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer Tura, West Garo Hills District
Meghalaya, therefore the Petitioner had approached by submitting the separate representations, one to the Directorate of School
Education and Literacy and another representation to the Directorate of Economics and Statistics requesting the State Respondents
to clarify the appointment of two persons for the one and same post and further requested the Respondent authority to change the
place of posting of Smti. Tengchi N. Sangma to the place where the post is lying vacant. But the Petitioner was surprised to learn that
the State Respondent instead of clarifying the matter and changing the place of posting of Smti. Tengchi N. Sangma as requested by
the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities had terminated the Petitioner from her service. It is also stated herein that the Petitioner''s
service was terminated on 5.12.2014 and interestingly the one month salary for the month of November was not fully released to the
Petitioner till date. It is also pertinent to state herein that one month salary of the Petitioner is a sum of Rs. 30,258/-(Rupees Thirty
Thousand, Two hundred and fifty eight) only and out of which Rs. 11,094/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Ninety Four) only was
paid/released to the Petitioner and sum of Rs. 19,164/-(Nineteen Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four)only is still remaining as
balance which is due to the Petitioner and hence there is no other alternative remedy left for the Petitioner but to approach before this
Hon''ble Court to redress her grievances by filing this instant Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 25th June, 2013 which is at Annexure-1 of the writ petition, the petitioner
was appointed for 89(eighty nine) days and thereafter, her service was extended from time to time, but unfortunately vide order dated 5th
December, 2014 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) the petitioner was terminated from her service. Hence, this petition.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner was purely appointed on temporary basis and had not even completed
her provisional period of 2(two) years, so she had no claim to continue in the service or to regularize her service.
On perusal of the Annexure-1 of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an officiating Statistical Assistant in the office of
the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Tura for 89(eighty nine) days from the date of joining or till the regular appointment is made
whichever is earlier. So, on perusal of the appointment letter, it is crystal clear that the appointment was purely temporary and without any
interview which was subsequently extended for 89(eighty nine) days three to four times.
Further vide Termination order dated 5th December, 2014 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) the petitioner''s service was not extended further.
I have also perused the counter affidavit at Para 9 and the same is reproduced herein below:
That in reply to para 4 and 5 of the writ petition, the answering respondent states that from Annexure -2, page 20 to 23 of the
writ petition and annexure - 3, page 24 to 27 of the writ petition clearly shows that the private respondent No.6 herein has been
appointed as regular candidate and the same have been done in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Meghalaya Public
Service Commission dated 26.6.2014 and the said private respondent appears to have qualified and was duly appointed in the post
of Statistical Assistant vide Order dated 30.10.2014 at the office of the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, at Tura, as per
Annexure - 3, Page 27 of the Writ Petition. The service of the Petitioner on the other hand was temporary in nature and the petitioner
has not completed nearly 2 years in service as stated by the petitioner in para 5, page 6 of her writ petition.
It may also be pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner has nowhere stated in her writ petition that she had also applied for the
said post of Statistical Asstt in pursuance to the Meghalaya Public Service Advertisement vide MPSC/D-6/2008-2009/70 dated
26.06.2014 and that she sat for the said Examination and Interview and qualified the same as per the merit list. Further, on careful
examination of the appointment Order vide No. ESA.28/2006/210 dated 30.10.2014, which is at page 27 of the writ petition, does
not anywhere show the name of the Petitioner.
On perusal of Para 9 referred above, it also appears that the respondent No. 6 who had replaced the petitioner had qualified through Meghalaya
Public Service Commission''s Test (Written examination and Interview). Thereafter, the counter affidavit of the respondents No. 4 and 5 at Para
13 also appears that the private respondent No. 6 got appointment as a regular candidate against the vacant post of Statistical Assistant in the
office of the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Tura.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and after perusal of the record, one issue is clear that the petitioner was
appointed purely on temporary basis initially for 89(eighty nine) days and subsequently, her service was extended for another 89(eighty nine) days,
but she has never been appointed to a permanent position. Besides that, it is also clear that her appointment is a backdoor appointment as she has
not faced any interview or qualified herself in any competitive exam to continue in the said post as it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for any direction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.