Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 21.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Smti Biullina K. Marak (Lower Divisional Assistant, appointed 01.04.1991), Smti Paelish Sangma (Lower Divisional Assistant, appointed 29.01.1993), Shri Hedinath K. Marak (Peon, appointed 31.01.1992).
  • Respondents: The State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department; Director of Mass and Elementary Education; Sub‑Divisional Schools Education Officers of Resubelpara and Dadenggiri; Secretary, Personnel & AR (B) Department.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 403, 404, 405 of 2025) seeking regularisation of their services as non‑teaching staff of District Council Lower Primary Schools taken over by the State under The Meghalaya (Taking over the District Council Lower Primary School) Act, 1993.
  • Background: The Act came into force on 02.06.1994, transferring liabilities of teachers present before December 1993 to the State. The status of non‑teaching staff remained unclear. Petitioners have rendered over 30 years of service but were not regularised.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: Smti Jippora Momin vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., WP(C) No. 226 of 2023, dated 27.02.2024, where the Court directed sympathetic consideration of similar cases.
  • Government Documents Referenced:
  • Cabinet Memorandum dated 01.12.2023 titled "Cabinet Approval for taking over the Service by the State Government in respect of Non‑Teaching Staff (both Office and Inspecting)" which listed petitioners’ names (Sl. Nos. 6 & 9 for Resubelpara Sub‑Division and Sl. No. 2 for Dadenggre Sub‑Division).
  • Minutes of a meeting held on 19.05.2026 of the "Committee for Regularization of Government/Non‑Government Lower Primary School Teachers" noting that non‑teaching staff are considered part of the school establishment.
  • Counsel: Petitioners were represented by Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv., assisted by Ms. J.T. Sangma, Adv. Respondents were represented by Mrs. T. Yangi B, AAG, assisted by Ms. R. Colney, GA.
  • Key Arguments:
  • Petitioners argued entitlement to regularisation based on over 30 years of service and inclusion in the Cabinet Memorandum list.
  • Respondents contended that the Act’s cutoff date (02.06.1994) requires a minimum of five years of qualifying service before that date; petitioners fell marginally short, though the Committee’s minutes suggested inclusion of non‑teaching staff.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that similar petitions had previously been directed to be considered by the State and noted the petitioners’ long service and their appearance in the Cabinet Memorandum annexure.
  • Direction: The State respondents must consider the regularisation cases of the three petitioners within four (4) months from the date of this order.
  • Petitioners may submit fresh individual representations, attaching a copy of this order, after which the State must dispose of the matter within the stipulated period.
  • The writ petitions are hereby closed and disposed of.

Topics: Regularization, Education Employment