Heard Mr. L. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
and also Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite
parties.
By this application the applicant has prayed for stay of the
impugned Office Order No.366 dated 30.05.2025 passed by the opposite
party No.4 by which the regularization of service of the applicant as
Junior Engineer was revoked and he was reverted back as a Contractual
Junior Engineer.
It transpires from the submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties and the materials on record that the applicant was appointed as a
Contractual Junior Engineer vide Office Order No.653 dated 31.08.2023
in pursuant to the advertisement vide Memo No.DC.I/21/2023/6/889
dated 22.08.2023. After completion of about 1 year and 1 month of
service as a contractual employee, the service of the applicant was
regularized as Junior Engineer vide Office Order No.722 dated
01.10.2024, on the basis of the decision of the Executive Committee of
the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC). However, by
the impugned Office Order No.366 dated 30.05.2025, the regularization
of the applicant as Junior Engineer was revoked and he was reverted back
as a Contractual Junior Engineer. The impugned Office Order, prima
facie, does not indicate that the applicant was issued with a notice or
provided with any opportunity of hearing before the decision to revoke
his regularization as Junior Engineer was made. Although, in the
impugned Office Order, the regularization of service of the applicant de
hors the applicable rule was stated to be the reason for revocation of
regularization of service of the applicant, nothing specific has been spelt
out to indicate as to what particular aspect of the applicable rule was not
adhered to while regularizing the service of the applicant.