MARCHBORN MARBANIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
H.S. Thangkhiew, j. -
(1.) Matter taken up via Video Conferencing.
(2.) Heard Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner, issue notice. Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG is present and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. N. Mozika, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 7 and 9. No further notice necessary for these respondents, however, notice to be issued by registered post AD to the private respondent No. 8 within 3(three) days.
(3.) Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner by the instant writ petition has assailed the promotion granted to the private respondent by contending that the respondents (MeECL) in consideration of the same had disregarded the candidature of the writ petitioner in spite of the fact that the writ petitioner was in no manner less meritorious to the private respondent as they possessed almost the same set of APAR (Annual Performance Appraisal Report) for the year 2018, which were relevant for the assessment. He contends that the promotion was effected by the application of the impugned Office Order dated 03.06.2020 which he submits is impermissible in law, as the same could not have been acted upon, being issued after the promotion order had been passed on 09.03.2020. He further submits that the Office Order dated 03.06.2020 (Annexure-IV), called the 'The MeSEB Service Regulations, 1996 [since adapted by the MeECL (Removal of Difficulties)] Order' dated 03.06.2020, whereby Regulation 39 (4) the MeSEB Service Regulations, 1996 was altered, was without any authority in law, and the respondents could not have taken recourse to the same in determining the final suitability of the candidates for promotion.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.