By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Nov 2: Meghalaya government’s decision to regularize recruitment practices by initiating open recruitment for posts occupied by ad hoc employees has prompted social activist Cherian Momin to petition Chief Minister Conrad Sangma urging him to reconsider the implementation of the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (B) Department on September 25 as he cited humanitarian, constitutional and labour law concerns.
In his petition to the chief minister, Momin expressed deep concern over the distress faced by hundreds of long-serving ad hoc employees across Meghalaya following the directive.
He stated that while the government’s move was “administratively well-intentioned,” it has caused “insecurity, anxiety, and distress” among employees who have served the state for years in sanctioned posts.
Momin argued that initiating open recruitment for posts occupied by ad hoc appointees appointed after December 31, 2007, without transitional safeguards, could violate their legitimate expectations and constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.
He highlighted that many of these employees were appointed not through political favour but to meet exigencies of public service when vacancies remained unfilled due to procedural delays.
“Having served continuously for over a decade, they have acquired both experience and a legitimate expectation of continuity, which the courts have recognised as an equitable right,” Momin who is also the adviser to the Confederation of Meghalaya Social Organisations (CoMSO) said.
Citing the apex court judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006), Momin noted that while the Court discouraged irregular appointments, it also emphasised compassion for those who had served ten years or more without litigation. He urged the Government to evaluate each case department-wise and adopt an equitable policy before enforcing any blanket replacement.
While appreciating the state’s move to allow a one-time Certificate of Age Condonation, Momin said that without recognition of years of service, performance weightage, or transitional protection, the measure would remain inadequate.
“Many of these employees have crossed the age limit for new recruitment because they spent their youth serving the State. Forcing them to compete as fresh candidates would amount to indirect discrimination,” he stressed.
The activist also drew attention to relevant labour laws, including the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and Code on Wages, 2019, arguing that prolonged service without security or benefits violated both domestic and international human rights obligations. He cited Articles 23 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which India is a signatory.
Momin said the government’s earlier decision to regularise employees appointed before December 31, 2007, set a moral precedent that should extend to those appointed after the cut-off date. “Justice must not hinge on arbitrary dates but on the nature and continuity of service rendered,” he said, warning that unequal treatment among similarly placed individuals could violate Article 14.
Transitional regularisation policy
The CoMSO chairman also urged the state to frame a transitional regularisation policy or introduce service preference points and departmental absorption mechanisms to ensure fairness. “Governance reforms must be tempered with compassion and guided by the jurisprudence of fairness and protection of livelihood,” Momin stated in the petition while calling for the Cabinet to revisit the memorandum and institute a balanced policy that upholds both administrative efficiency and human dignity.
Momin expressed confidence that the chief minister and his Cabinet would uphold Meghalaya’s long-standing ethos of compassionate governance and ensure protection for those who have served the State with sincerity and devotion, even without formal recognition.
The copy of the petition was also submitted to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary of Law department and Commissioner and Secretary of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (B) department.
