Meghalaya High Court
Shri Gordon Lyngdoh vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 31 January, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP (C) No. 11 of 2025
Date of Order: 31.01.2025
Shri Gordon Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv. with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA (For R 1&2)
Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv. (For R 3&4)
Heard Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Issue notice.
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA is present and accepts notice
on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 & 2, and Mr. Philemon Nongbri,
learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4, so
no further notice is called for in respect of these respondents.
Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 5 by registered AD within
3(three) days.
Page 1 of 3
It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondents Nos. 2 & 3, by the impugned office order
dated 06.01.2025 have promoted the respondent No. 5 to the post of
Water Works Superintendent which is a technical post, whereas the
respondent No. 5 is serving in a clerical cadre. It is further submitted
that a representation has been filed before the Chief Secretary and also
a legal notice, which has not been answered by the respondents. Learned
counsel submits that vide an order dated 03.08.2023, the petitioner was
allowed to officiate as Water Works Superintendent and though this
order was recalled on 10.08.2023, has however continued as such. He
therefore, prays that in the interim some protection be given as he is still
continuing as the Water Works Superintendent.
Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.
3 & 4, has raised strong objections to the prayer for stay and has
submitted that the promotion has been made on the basis of seniority,
and that the petitioner does not fall within the zone of consideration. He
further submits that the officiating appointment has since been cancelled
and as such, the petitioner does not have any vested right to claim for
consideration for promotion to the post. He therefore submits that no
interference is called for and the prayer for interim orders be rejected.
Page 2 of 3
Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials
on record.
What strikes the Court at the first instance is the absence of any
set procedure, executive instructions or service rules that should govern
the service conditions of the employees of the Shillong Municipal
Board. Though a gradation list has been produced by the learned counsel
for the respondents No. 3 & 4, as also Departmental proceedings for
promotion, in the absence of other materials, the learned counsel is
directed to further clarify the exact procedure that has been adopted by
the Shillong Municipal Board with regard to promotion etc., and also to
clarify the nature and exact duties and powers of the Water Works
Superintendent. It is further provided that until the next date, status quo
as on today shall be maintained with regard to the post of Water Works
Superintendent.
List this matter on 20.02.2025.
It is expected that by the next date, the affidavit should be on
board with all the necessary clarifications.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
31.01.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Page 3 of 3
[ad_1]
Source link