SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 370

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Shri Rakesh Ranjan – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors - Respondents
WP(C) 126 of 2023
Decided on : 01-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Taka Masa, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arenglong, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. S. Mere, Government Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the principle that eligibility for regularization under a specific category is contingent upon the nature of the appointment against a sanctioned post. It also emphasized the calculation of seniority from the date of regularization and the significance of timely legal recourse.

Headnote:

Regularization - Appointment against Sanctioned Post - Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004 - [REGULARIZATION] - [EMPLOYMENT] - [Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004] - The court discussed the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004, which provided for the regularization of ad-hoc/contract employees against sanctioned posts. The judgment analyzed the appointment of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner's appointment was not against a sanctioned post, thus not falling within the ambit of Category-I employees eligible for regularization under the said Memorandum.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to challenge the impugned order to set aside/review/reconsider the date of regularization and seniority. The petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher on Ad-hoc basis and sought regularization w.e.f. 16.01.2004. The petitioner's services were eventually regularized w.e.f. 18.05.2010, leading to a dispute over seniority and entitlement to benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's appointment was not against a sanctioned post, thus not falling within the ambit of Category-I employees eligible for regularization under the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004. The court also determined that the petitioner's seniority should be calculated from the date of regularization, i.e., 18.05.2010. Additionally, the court held that the petition suffered from delay and laches, leading to its dismissal.

Issues: 1. Entitlement to regularization under Category-I of the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004. 2. Calculation of seniority from the date of appointment or regularization. 3. Delay and laches in approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's appointment was not against a sanctioned post, rendering the petitioner ineligible for regularization under Category-I of the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004. The seniority was determined from the date of regularization, i.e., 18.05.2010. The court dismissed the petition due to delay and laches in approaching the court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no ground for issuance of a writ as sought for. No costs were imposed in the given circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Taka Masa, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenglong, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Ms. S. Mere, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition to set aside/review/reconsider the impugned order No.ED/MISC-2/2004-2005/180-209 dated 05.07.2010 only with regard to the Petitioner issued by the Director, School Education and further seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to review and re-fix the date of regularization and the seniority of the Petitioner w.e.f. 16.01.2004 with all consequential benefits.

3. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that the Petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher on Ad-hoc basis vide an order No.ED/EL/C/2/92-93(PT) dated 12.03.1993 issued by the Director, Department of School Education and posted at Government Middle School, Tanhai, Mon. It is relevant to take note of the appointment order which has been enclosed as Annexure-A. From a perusal of the said appointment order, it reveals that the appointment of the Petitioner on Ad-hoc basis was against the transfer vacancy which arose in view of Shri N.T. Shitri who was transferred to the Government High School Chunlikha. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner was granted two increments vide an order dated 18.06.1993 upon passing B.Ed. On 24.03.2008, the Petitioner upon completion of 10 years of continuous service under the establishment of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Mon was granted a Senior Grade scale of pay w.e.f. 12.08.2003.

4. The Government of Nagaland in its Personal and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) issued a Memorandum dated 18.02.2004. The said Memorandum was issued in pursuance to a Committee constituted to examine the issues relating to the large number of Ad-hoc/contract employees appointed in the past in various State Government Offices and the said Committee recommended solutions for taking various measures with the existing situation and to prevent recurrence of such appointment in future. The Cabinet of the Government of Nagaland on 16.01.2004 approved the said recommendations which resulted in the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2004. In the said Memorandum, a decision was taken as regards the existing Ad-hoc/contract employees. There were two categories as per the said Memorandum. Category-I related to Ad-hoc/contract appointment made against sanctioned post whereas Category-II were Casual/fixed pay appointments without any sanctioned post. Category-I was sub-categorized into three groups. The first group were those employees having more than 10 years of service. In respect to the said group, an employee may be considered for regularization provided:

    (i) There is a sanction post;

(ii) The employee fulfils all the eligibility criteria for the post including the requisite educational qualification; and

(iii) The performance of the employee has been satisfactory in the service.

In this sub-category, the requirement was that the concerned department shall submit specific cases to the Government for approval after obtaining the recommendations of a Screening Committee composing of various members.

The second sub-category are for those employees having 5 to 10 years of service who would also be regularized if there was a sanction post; the employee fulfilled all eligibility criteria for the post including the requisite educational qualifications and the performance of the employee had been satisfactory in the service. However, the difference between this sub-category with the sub-category of those employees having more than 10 years of service was that these employees having 5 to 10 years of service have to appear in an examination (both written and/or viva-voce) to test the suitability which was to be organized by the concerned Department under the supervision of the Administrative Training Institute, Nagaland, Kohima and those

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top