Smti Daritimai Lyngdoh vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 27 May, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Meghalaya High Court

Smti Daritimai Lyngdoh vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 27 May, 2022

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

 Serial No. 30
 Regular List
                     HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                           AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 240 of 2021
                                           Date of Decision: 27.05.2022

Smti Daritimai Lyngdoh             Vs.     State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :    Mr. E. Nongbri, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :    Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, AAG with
                                 Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA

i)     Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
       Law journals etc:

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



                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The grievance of the writ petitioner centres around the fact that after being promoted from Typist Grade-III by way of seniority to the post of LDA on 10.12.2020, by the order dated 02.07.2021, which is impugned herein, was reverted back to the post of Typist Grade-III. It is Page 1 of 4 contended by the writ petitioner that the reversion is illegal, inasmuch as, per The Meghalaya Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 2010 as amended, the petitioner's services falls under Rule 11 (1) which is Typist (Grade-III) and for promotion to Grade-II, one would have to pass a Speed Test, conducted by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission. This contention has been made to advance the argument that as the petitioner was still in Grade-III, the stand of the respondents that she had opted for Grade Cadre by sitting in the Speed Test, which has disentitled her for normal promotion, is misplaced.

2. Mr. E. Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no where has it been shown by the respondents that participation in the Speed Test for promotion to Grade-II, would disentitle the petitioner for consideration for normal promotion to LDA, and as the petitioner was not successful in the Speed Test, she remained in Grade-III. It is also argued by the counsel that it is on this consideration that promotion was accorded to the petitioner and the reversion based on the Office Memorandum 16.03.2006, which is not clear on these terms cannot be taken as a ground for reversion.

3. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG assisted by Ms. I. Lyngwa, leaned GA for the State respondents submits that the petitioner is estopped from assailing the impugned order, inasmuch as, the very Page 2 of 4 fact the petitioner had opted for the Speed Test would indicate her consent to be placed in the Grade system. He further submits that it is only due to the fact the Office Memorandum dated 16.03.2006 had been overlooked in this aspect that promotion was granted, which was however later corrected by the impugned order on the basis of the proceedings of second Departmental Promotion Committee.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on examination of the materials on record, especially the Office Memorandum dated 16.03.2006, wherein at clause 5 (a) has provided as follows:-

"(a) A Typist who opts for the Grade System shall continued as such and he/she shall not be eligible for promotion to the post of L.D Assistant irrespective of his/her Seniority of the Cadre/Service."

It is noted that the above quoted clause speaks about an option for Grade system. However, clause 5 (b) which deals with promotion to L.D Cadre being open only to Grade-III Typist has provided as follows:-

"(b) The appointment of L.D Cadre shall be open only to the Cadre of Grade-III Typists until he/she is eligible for such promotion as per the Provision of the Service Rules and on promotion to the post of L.D. Asstt. shall continue as such and shall not be eligible to the Grade Scales in future."

Page 3 of 4

5. In the backdrop of these two clauses of the Memorandum, this Court is of the view that this matter would be better served if the respondents first address the representations, which had been presented by the writ petitioner at Annexures-XIV and XVI by way of a speaking order.

6. In this view of the matter, notwithstanding any other observation that has been made as to the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to dispose of the representations of the writ petitioner dated 16.07.2021 and 10.08.2021 within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

7. It is made clear that the observations or any other views taken by this Court shall not influence the respondents in any manner while disposing of the said representations.

8. With the above noted directions, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Meghalaya 27.05.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"

Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Meghalaya High Court