Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Ramfangzuavi Khiangte and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Secretary to The Govt. of Meghalaya and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 123, 124 and 125 (SH) of 2005
Decided On: 24.06.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.H. Hazarika and Afreen Begum, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: H.S. Thangkhiew, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adhoc period of service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority, and that the principles of natural justice may not require a pre-decisional hearing if the factual and legal aspects of the matter are clear.
Headnote:
Promotions - Seniority - Adhoc Appointments - Regularization of Services - Natural Justice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were initially appointed on adhoc and temporary basis as LDA cum Typist. After a selection process, their services were regularized with effect from 5.12.89. Subsequently, they were promoted to the cadre of UDA, but the promotions were withdrawn and they were reverted to their original posts of LDA cum Typist. The petitioners contended that the withdrawal of promotions violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to count their seniority from their initial adhoc appointments, but only from the date of regularization of their services. The court also held that the withdrawal of promotions did not violate the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were duly informed of the situation and had the opportunity to present their case before the court.
Issues: The crucial issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to count their seniority from their initial adhoc appointments or from the date of regularization of their services, and whether the withdrawal of promotions violated the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were only entitled to count their seniority from the date of regularization of their services. The court also found that the withdrawal of promotions did not violate the principles of natural justice as the petitioners were duly informed and had the opportunity to present their case before the court.
Final Decision: The court directed that the petitioners could continue in their promotional posts of UDA until their seniors were promoted, but made it clear that they would be replaced by their seniors once the promotions were made. The court vacated the interim orders previously passed.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. All the three writ petitions are on the same set of facts and are based on same cause of action. Thus, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The three writ Petitioners involved in the writ petitions are aggrieved by the impugned order by which the order of promotions made in favour of the Petitioners from LDA to UDA has been withdrawn reverting them back to their original posts of LDA.
2. The Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 123/2005 was first appointed as LDA cum Typist under the Respondents on adhoc basis with effect from 10.9.80. The Petitioner in the second writ petition was also appointed on temporary basis as LDA cum Typist by an order dated 2.3.81. The third writ Petitioner was appointed by order dated 15.9.80 as LDA cum Typist for a period of 90 days against a leave vacancy. All the Petitioners continued in their services as LDA cum Typist. Their such initial appointments were admittedly on adhoc and temporary basis without following the recruitment rules.
3. A selection was conducted for the posts of LDA cum Typist and the Petitioners were directed to appear in the selection. Such selection was conducted in the year 1989 by the District Selection Committee, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. The Petitioners could qualify in the selection and a letter dated 5.9.89 signed on 5.12.89 (Annexure-III) was issued by the Secretary of the District Selection Committee to the Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills with copies to the Petitioners on the subject of regularization of adhoc appointees. By the said letter, the factum of recommending the Petitioners for regularization of their services pursuant to the selection conducted by the District Selection Committee (DSC) was intimated.
4. Thereafter, by Annexure-IV letter dated 12.3.90, the Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills intimated the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Admn.), about regularization of the adhoc services of the Petitioners with effect from their initial date of appointments on 10.9.80, 15.9.80 and 1.3.81 respectively. By yet another order dated 21.11.90 (Annexure-V), the services of the Petitioners were stated to be regularized with effect from the date of the recommendation made by the DSC. Thus, on the strength of the order, the Petitioners came to be borne in the regular cadre of LDA cum Typist from the date of regularization of their services from the date of recommendation made by the DSC vide Annexure-III letter dated 5.12.89.
5. After the aforesaid regularization of their services with effect from 5.12.89, the Petitioners were promoted to the cadre of UDA on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Their such promotion was effected by Annexure-VI order dated 14.4.2004 and their promotions were stated to be temporary and on officiating basis. The Petitioners on being released vide order dated 16.4.2004 from their posts of LDA cum Typist pursuant to the order of promotions, joined the promotional posts of UDA. After rendering about one year of service, the impugned order dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure-X) has been issued giving rise to the present writ proceeding. By the said impugned order, the earlier order of promotions promoting to the Petitioners to the rank of UDA has been withdrawn and they have been reverted to the original posts of, LDA cum Typist. According to the Petitioners such a course of action has been adopted by the Respondents in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. The Respondents have entered appearance by filing their counter affidavit. The basic stand of the Respondents is that the temporary and officiating promotions of the Petitioners had to be withdrawn, inasmuch as, their cases were considered by the DPC taking their seniority from their initial dates of adhoc appointment and not from the date of regularization of their services by the DSC. According to them, the counting of seniority of the Petitioners
