SHILLONG, India, March 10 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 9:
1. The petitioners, who are stated to be serving in the post of Industrial Promotion Officer in the Department of Commerce and Industries for the last 14 years, are again before this Court in this third round of litigation praying for regularisation of their services in the said post.
2. The brief necessary background facts are that the petitioners had entered their services by a selection process which had been conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee, and were appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the MPSC (LoFs) Regulation 1972. On their services not being regularised, the writ petitioners had in the years 2017 and 2019, approached this Court by way of WP(C). No. 198 of 2017 and WP(C). No. 257 of 2019, which were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11-03- 2020, whereby, directions were issued that the petitioners be allowed to participate in the selection process which had been advertised on 26-04- 2016. Against the order of the Single Bench, the writ petitioners had then preferred WA. No. 11 of 2020 and WA. No. 12 of 2020, which was disposed of by order dated 22-10-2021, whereby this Court had directed that the representation of the petitioners was to be decided by the respondents on its own merit and in the light of documents dated 10-01-2013 and 19-02-2021.
3. The present grievance of the writ petitioners is that though there were clear directions passed by this Court in the writ appeals, the representation had been disposed on a different ground altogether, and not as per directions of the Division Bench and further, that the fresh writ petitions had been occasioned in view of the fact that the respondents had referred to the Office Memorandum dated 25-09-2025, with regard to the aspect of regularisation of the writ petitioners. 4. Mr. N.Syngkon, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondents in seeking to club the services of the petitioners and their prayer for regularisation under the Office Memorandum dated 25- 09-2025 is misplaced and incorrect, inasmuch as, the cause of action of the petitioners and their claim for regularisation, had arisen much before the advent of the said memorandum which would apply only to other cases. Learned counsel has also strenuously argued that though the representation preferred pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 22-10-2021 had been disposed, the same was without considering the directions contained therein. He further submits that a further order which has been impugned, had also been issued on 15-12-2025, whereby the services of the writ petitioners have not been extended, but however, due to the interim orders of this Court, the petitioners are continuing in service. Learned counsel then prays that a writ of mandamus be issued to direct the respondents to comply with the explicit direction contained in the Division Bench order and for disposal of the representation afresh taking into account the documents mentioned therein.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kvz7NXQujZAmhEjKnrYoA0mDuu6FFs4zijzyHIyETPsWk&caseno=WP(C)/13/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010000362026&state_code=21&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
