Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Meghalaya High Court

Ran Vijay Singh vs . Union Of India & Ors on 6 August, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MEG 115

Author: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir

Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir

 Serial No.10
 Regular List
                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                          AT SHILLONG
WP (C) No.327/2014
                                               Date of Order: 06.08.2018
Ran Vijay Singh                     Vs.              Union of India & ors
Coram:
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   : Mr. S Banik, Adv
For the Respondent(s)               Mr. R Deb Nath, CGC
i)    Whether approved for reporting in                    Yes/No
      Law journals etc.:

ii)   Whether approved for publication
      in press:                                            Yes/No

ORAL

1. The admitted position as emerged from the records as well as from the pleadings of the respective parties is, that the petitioner was enrolled in Assam Rifles as Riflemen (GD) on 30.11.1991. He attended Diploma Course in Civil Engineering conducted at College of Military Engineering (CME) Pune from 05.05.2003 to 30.04.2005, while serving with Constr. & Maint. Coy, Assam Rifles Laitkor, Shillong. Vide order No.1.21022/06/Engr/2007/Adm-II dated 19.01.2007 he was posted to 26th Assam Rifles in lieu of an Engr JCO (B&R) with a clarification that his services will be gainfully utilized in supervision works and for making estimates. The petitioner has been performing his duties as Engineer Bridge and Road since 29.01.2007.

2. The petitioner seems to have represented for his remusteration from Rfn/GD (B&R) to Nb.Sub (B&R) same has been denied on the ground that in terms of Recruitment Rules, 2000, method for recruitment of Naib Subedar is 100% by direct recruitment. In short, it is the stand of the respondents that remusteration is not permissible vis-à-vis posts of Naib Subedar, which are to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 2014, a signal has been sent suggesting that the Diploma 1 qualified NCO/OR not authorized to sign MBS till remustered. In addition thereto also referred to the order dated 19.01.2007 issued by the office of Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong in terms whereof, number of Diploma qualified personnel which include the petitioner were posted in various units with a condition that the Diploma qualified persons will be gainfully utilized to supervise the works and to make estimates, however, as these persons have not been remustered into Engr. Trade, the Engr. JCO posted at Sector HQ will verify and sign all the technical documents put up by these Diploma qualified persons. It is the contention that there is scope for remustering in view of its reference in the order dated 29.01.2007 as well as in the signal dated 14.05.2014.

4. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that remusteration in effect is a direct recruitment. Therefore, the respondents cannot take a stand adverse to the interest of the petitioner under the guise of the Recruitment Rules of 2000.

5. Confronted with the said position, learned CGC would submit that the position has not been clarified. In case, remusteration is equivalent to direct recruitment then, such personnel have to satisfy the conditions as incorporated in the Record Office Instruction No.2/2012 for their remusteration.

6. In the stated given circumstances, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take all necessary steps at their respective levels for according consideration to the case of the petitioner for remusteration from Rfn/GD (B&R) to Nb.Sub (B&R) and to pass appropriate orders thereon as shall permissible under the law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision whatever taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Right is reserved to the petitioner to re- agitate subject to survival of cause.

7. Disposed of as above.

(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 06.08.2018 "Lam AR-PS"

2