WP(C) No. 189/2015. Case: Irene Mary Jyrwa Vs The Registrar North Eastern Hill University. Meghalaya High Court

Case NumberWP(C) No. 189/2015
Party NameIrene Mary Jyrwa Vs The Registrar North Eastern Hill University
CounselFor Appellant: S. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: S. Sen, Learned Counsel
JudgesDinesh Maheshwari, C.J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateMarch 02, 2016
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Judgment:

Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.

  1. Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner.

  2. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel, appears for the respondent-University.

  3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against denial of appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent-University.

  4. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner's husband, (L) Michael Khongjee, who was working with the respondent-University as a Laboratory Assistant, died in harness in the year 1998. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner made an application seeking appointment on suitable post on compassionate ground. In the meeting of the concerned Committee of the respondent-University, as held on 05.12.1998, the case of the petitioner was duly considered and she was recommended for appointment on any suitable Group 'D' post. It appears from the record that despite such recommendation, the petitioner was not accorded appointment on regular basis but was engaged as a daily-rated Peon and she is said to have hitherto continued only in that capacity.

  5. Having not been accorded regular appointment, the petitioner made a representation and ultimately, approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 254 of 2013. In the said writ petition, it was stated on behalf of the respondent-University that the matter of giving regular appointment to the petitioner was under consideration. Taking note of such submissions, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.03.2014 with the observations that the respondent-University would take a decision in the matter within a period of three months. It is also pointed out that the respondent-University moved an application, being Misc. Case No. 183 of 2014, for extension of time by another three months and the Court granted the respondent-University further time on 30.06.2015.

  6. The petitioner would submit that despite passage of much time, the respondent-University failed to take a decision in her matter although, the requisite information as regards financial status was supplied to the authority concerned by way of an affidavit on 12.02.2015. The petitioner has pointed out that she served a notice through her lawyer on 12.05.2015 and when the notice also failed to evoke any response, she was left with no alternative but to approach this Court. The petitioner would contend that there was no reason to deny her appointment on...

To continue reading

Request your trial