KAMLESH HAJONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. B Khyriem, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3.

(2.) THE petitioners are the members of Garo Scheduled Tribe and they were appointed as Junior Accounts Assistants in the office of the Treasury Officer, Tura, Treasury vide office order dated 27.10.2005 on officiating basis for a period of two months w.e.f. 01.11.2005 to 31.12.2005 against the vacant posts. The copy of the said order dated 27.10.2005 is available at Annexure -B to the writ petition. On bare perusal of it, it is clear that the petitioners had been appointed on officiating basis as Junior Accounts Assistants against the vacant posts. The terms of the petitioners' appointments as Junior Accounts Assistants on temporary basis had been extended from time to time. The last order for extending the services of the petitioners was issued on 01.10.2012, and under that order, the terms of the officiating appointments of the petitioners had been extended up to 31.12.2012. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the case of 17 (seventeen) others officiating Junior Accounts Assistants, whose terms of appointments were similar with the present writ petitioners, in pursuance to the Cabinet decision, their cases had been forwarded to the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC') for consideration of their cases for regular appointments. In the writ petition, the petitioners had categorically stated that for the best reason not known to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners had been left out while sending the names of the officiating Junior Accounts Assistants for consideration for regular appointments by the MPSC.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 the Director of Accounts & Treasuries, Meghalaya, Shillong also filed affidavit -in -opposition wherein, the respondent No. 2 stated that the Cabinet has approved for the regularization of the 17 (seventeen) ad hoc appointees and as such, ultimately the respondent No. 2, Director of Accounts & Treasuries issued an office order dated 14.04.2010 i.e. Annexure -VIII to the affidavit -in -opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, which reads as follows: -