Meghalaya High Court: While considering a batch of writ petitions filed by eleven lady supervisors challenging their temporary employment in service for about 14 years from the date of appointment and sought regular appointment and through a singular exercise allowing petitioners to qualify through a special selection process, H. S. Thangkhiew, J. directed the State to conduct a special interview or examination, to enable the petitioners to subsequently be evaluated for regularization.
Background
Pursuant to an advertisement dated 12-11-2009, which invited eligible candidates for a walk-in interview for temporary appointments as Lady Supervisors in the Garo Hills Division under Integrated Child Development Services (“ICDS”) Projects, had appeared for the same. They were informed that their appointments would be temporary, subject to regularization through selection by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (“MPSC”)/District Selection Committee(“DSC”). Upon successful interviews, the petitioners were granted temporary appointments. Subsequently, their appointments as Lady Supervisors under the ICDS were approved by the Cabinet on 15-01-2010, in accordance with regulation 3(f) of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1972.
Initially appointed on 23-02-2010 for one year, their services were extended repeatedly. Despite requests for advertisements and interviews for post of Lady Supervisor, no actions were taken which lead to further extensions. While three 2010 appointees received regular appointments, the petitioners remained temporary despite participating in various trainings and repeated requests for regularization. Although advertisements were published in 2015, the petitioners’ applications were ignored and a request for regularization based on their service was denied, stating they must qualify through an examination.
The Director of Social Welfare urged all District Selection Committees (DSCs) to advertise for Lady Supervisor positions, but this was halted by the Joint Director of Social Welfare. On 27-04-2022, the petitioners again sought regularization after having served over twelve years. Finally, on 14-02-2023, the State respondents informed that Lady Supervisors appointed under 3(f) could only be regularized after receiving a recommendation from the MPSC/DSC.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that petitioners were serving for over fourteen years and that the Director of Social Welfare in recognition of the service and experience of petitioners had requested the State to consider regularization on several occasions.
The Court said that the petitioners were deprived of participating in a selection process to ensure their permanency in the posts, without any fault of their own.
The Court noted that the State Government issued an order on 23-06-2022, regarding the regularization of ad-hoc appointments made before 31-12-2007, with specific conditions which are-
(i) The regularization applies only to sanctioned posts.
(ii) It applies solely to ad hoc appointments made on or before 31-12-2007.
(iii) The regularization is subject to existing Rules and Regulations.
(iv) The order is effective prospectively from the date of its issue. Furthermore, ad hoc employees must undergo a special examination or interview conducted specifically for this purpose by either the Meghalaya Public Service Commission or the relevant District/Departmental Selection Committee.
The Court said that petitioners had dedicated many years of service and gained significant experience, creating a legitimate expectation of regularization in the positions they currently hold. However, they were not given a fair opportunity to secure this regularization.
The Court said that considering the State’s policy decision, as a guideline for the regularization of ad-hoc appointees, and given that the terms of the petitioners’ appointment were contingent upon their qualification through a regular selection process by the MPSC/DSC, the State respondents should conduct a special interview or examination, to enable the petitioners to be considered for regularization thereafter.
Thus, the Court directed the State respondents to conduct a special interview or examination for the petitioners as soon as possible, considering the circumstances specific to this case.
[Tamsin T. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 460, Decided on: 28-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for the Petitioners: Senior Advocate A.S. Siddiqui, Advocate A. Kharmyndai
Counsel for the Respondents: AAG N.D. Chullai, GA Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA S. Bhattacharjee, GA. I. Lyngwa,
