High Court of Meghalaya
Smti Daritimai Lyngdoh vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 27 May, 2022
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
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
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."
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"
