State authorities must consider regularization of long-serving non-teaching staff from taken-over district council schools.

The three petitioners were non-teaching employees associated with District Council Lower Primary Schools in the Garo Hills region. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 403 of 2025 was appointed as a Lower Divisional Assistant on 1 April 1991; the petitioner in WP(C) No. 404 of 2025 was appointed as a Lower Divisional Assistant on 29 January 1993; and the petitioner in WP(C) No. 405 of 2025 was appointed as a Peon on 31 January 1992.

The District Council Lower Primary Schools were taken over by the State Government under the Meghalaya (Taking over the District Council Lower Primary School) Act, 1993, which came into force on 2 June 1994. Although the Act transferred liabilities relating to teachers, the position of non-teaching staff remained unclear.

The petitioners claimed that, despite having served for more than 30 years, their services had not been regularized. They relied upon the decision in Smti Jippora Momin v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., WP(C) No. 226 of 2023, decided on 27 February 2024, and a Cabinet Memorandum dated 1 December 2023 concerning the State’s taking over of the services of non-teaching staff. Their names were included in the annexure to that Cabinet Memorandum for consideration.

The State contended that employees had to possess five years of qualifying service before the cutoff date and that none of the petitioners satisfied that requirement.

Whether the petitioners, as non-teaching staff of District Council Lower Primary Schools taken over by the State Government, were entitled to consideration for regularization under the 1993 Act and the applicable governmental policy.

Whether the petitioners’ alleged failure to complete five years of qualifying service before the 2 June 1994 cutoff date disentitled them from having their cases considered for regularization.

Whether the State authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ claims for regularization in light of the Cabinet Memorandum and prior judicial directions.

The Court considered the Meghalaya (Taking over the District Council Lower Primary School) Act, 1993, which brought the District Council Lower Primary Schools under the State Government with effect from 2 June 1994 and transferred the relevant liabilities concerning teachers serving before the takeover.

The State relied on the requirement of five years’ qualifying service before the cutoff date for conferment of regular-service benefits.

The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Smti Jippora Momin v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., where, on similar facts, the State authorities had been directed to consider the petitioner’s case sympathetically.

The Court further considered the Cabinet Memorandum dated 1 December 2023 on taking over the services of non-teaching staff, together with the established approach in earlier cases requiring the State to consider such claims in accordance with entitlement, applicable law and policy.

The Court did not itself determine that the petitioners were automatically entitled to regularization. It noted, however, that all three had been appointed before the takeover cutoff, had rendered more than 30 years of service, and belonged to the non-teaching establishment of schools taken over by the State.

Although the State relied on the alleged shortfall in the five-year qualifying-service requirement, the Court considered that issue to be one requiring examination by the competent authorities, particularly because the legal position concerning non-teaching staff had previously been unclear and similar cases had been directed to be considered.

The inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the Cabinet Memorandum’s annexure further supported administrative consideration of their claims, without constituting a final determination of entitlement.

Accordingly, the Court adopted the course followed in earlier matters and directed the State respondents to consider the cases under the applicable law, policy and the surrounding facts.

The petitioners were permitted to submit fresh individual representations, along with a copy of the judgment, and the authorities were directed to decide them within the stipulated period.

The Court therefore issued a direction for consideration, but did not grant an absolute order of regularization.

The writ petitions were accordingly closed and disposed of.