Court’s Decision
The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the termination order dated 16.12.2020 and regularisation of service as Assistant Teacher. The Court held that the petitioner had no vested right to seek regularisation as her appointment was purely temporary and she had failed to qualify in the duly held selection process. The Court concluded:
“Her case for regularisation in the light of such subsequent circumstances cannot be sustained… This petition is found to be devoid of merits and dismissed as such.”
Facts
The petitioner was temporarily appointed in a sanctioned leave vacancy post at Langja Government Lower Primary School for 59-day stints from 2007 onwards, with intermittent breaks between appointments. Though recommended for regular appointment in 2009, the introduction of the Right to Education Act, 2009 changed eligibility criteria, halting further action. Repeated representations for regularisation in 2016 and 2018 yielded no positive response. A writ petition filed in 2019 was disposed of with a direction to the department to consider her case, which it rejected, allowing her only to participate in future selection processes. Despite participating in the 2020 selection, she failed to qualify. Her services were not renewed beyond 15.12.2020, prompting this fresh writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of her service as Assistant Teacher after serving temporarily over several years.
- Whether termination of her temporary service without extension violates her rights.
- Whether participation in the selection process bars her from seeking regularisation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that she had been in continuous service for over 12 years as Assistant Teacher, thus falling within the protection of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly paragraph 53, which allows for regularisation of employees who have served for more than 10 years in sanctioned posts. She also relied on the judgment in Blandar Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya, where this Court had directed regularisation after 25 years of service. She argued that despite participating in the interview for regular recruitment in 2020, her failure to clear the MTET should not defeat her claim for regularisation based on her past service.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that this was the third round of litigation by the petitioner on the same issue. It submitted that the petitioner was only temporarily appointed for short terms of 59 days and that there were gaps between such appointments. Thus, she was never in continuous service. It was argued that she was allowed to participate in the regular selection process as a special case, but having failed to qualify, she had no basis to claim regularisation. The respondents further asserted that her claim was barred by estoppel and res judicata, and she could not revert to claiming regularisation after failing to secure appointment through proper procedure.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized that mere continuation on temporary or ad hoc basis does not create a vested right to seek regularisation. The legal position is that appointments must be made according to established rules and eligibility criteria, and temporary service—even if prolonged—does not confer entitlement to permanent absorption. The Court relied on the communication dated 19.08.2020 which showed she was permitted to appear for interview under a special consideration, not as a matter of right. However, her failure to qualify foreclosed further relief.
Precedent Analysis
- Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to highlight that regularisation cannot be claimed as a right unless the employee has worked for over 10 years in a sanctioned post through a proper selection process. The petitioner here did not meet these criteria.
- Blandar Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya (WP(C) No. 188 of 2018): Though relied on by the petitioner, the High Court found it distinguishable. In that case, the petitioner had completed 25 years of service. In contrast, the present petitioner had temporary, intermittent service and had failed in the competitive selection.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the 2020 recruitment process under court orders and departmental directions. Her name appeared on the eligibility list, and she attended the interview. However, she failed to qualify. As such, she could not be considered for regular appointment. The Court also noted that her repeated petitions on the same issue amounted to an abuse of process, especially when the relief had already been rejected and not challenged further. The doctrine of estoppel and res judicata applied to bar her claim.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the petitioner had no legally enforceable right to claim regularisation after failing in a valid selection process. Her services, being contractual and temporary, were not terminated illegally but simply not renewed. The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Implications
This judgment reiterates the principle that temporary service—even if long in duration—does not create any enforceable right to regularisation unless it is supported by continuous service in a sanctioned post and through a proper selection procedure. It also affirms that participation in a competitive recruitment process and failure therein precludes subsequent claims for regularisation. This decision could impact similarly placed ad hoc teachers seeking regularisation without qualifying eligibility norms.
FAQs
Q1. Can a temporary teacher claim regularisation after years of ad hoc service?
Not unless the appointment was to a sanctioned post and made through proper selection; temporary or ad hoc appointments, even if renewed repeatedly, do not create a right to regularisation.
Q2. Does participation in a recruitment process bar further legal claims for regularisation?
Yes. If a candidate participates in a regular selection process and fails to qualify, they cannot later seek regularisation on earlier service grounds due to the doctrine of estoppel.Q3. What did the Meghalaya High Court decide in this case?
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to qualify in the regular selection and had no vested right to claim permanent absorption based on her previous temporary service.
