Authority: High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong

Order Date: 16.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners:

1. Shri Langstar Jarain (Casual Worker appointed 1991, temporary status from 01.09.1993)

2. Shri Niatlien Syiem (Pro‑rata daily wage labourer appointed 19.01.1993, temporary status from 01.09.1993)

3. Shri Tranbor Langbnang (Pro‑rata casual labourer appointed 01.04.1991, temporary status from 01.09.1993)

  • Respondents: Union of India (Ministry of Education), University Grants Commission, North Eastern Hill University (Vice‑Chancellor and Registrar).
  • All three writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 361, 399, 400 of 2025) were filed together as they arose from similar facts – each petitioner sought regularisation/absorption into permanent posts after years of service and having been granted temporary status under "The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993".
  • Petitioners had made multiple representations for regularisation; in WP(C) No. 361, a formal rejection was issued on 27.01.2025. The other petitioners similarly received no positive response.
  • Counsel Ms. S. Bhattacharjee argued that the petitioners, especially Shri Langstar Jarain who had passed the P.U. exam, were eligible for permanent status against regular vacancies and cited the Court’s judgment dated 30.06.2026 in WP(C) No. 135 of 2025 (All NEHU Workers' Union vs. NEHU & Ors.) which directed a review for absorption of eligible temporary members within six months.
  • Respondent counsel contended that the 1993 scheme was a one‑time measure, not extendable, and that NEHU could only recruit to sanctioned posts through Cadre Recruitment Rules (CRR). They highlighted that after the Sixth Pay Commission, Group‑D posts were abolished, upgraded to Group‑C, and that NEHU lacked authority to regularise without explicit directions from the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT) approved by UGC or the Ministry of Education.
  • The Court noted that NEHU had written to DoPT on 06.02.2023 and 14.08.2023 (copies to UGC) seeking guidance, but the authorities had not responded.
  • The Court also observed that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications for Group‑C posts; although Shri Langstar Jarain claimed to have cleared Class X and ITI, no documentary proof was produced.
  • The Court referenced the earlier judgment in WP(C) No. 70 of 2024 (Elias Marbaniang & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) dated 07.09.2026, which dismissed similar reliefs, and quoted paragraph 16 stating structural impossibility of regularisation post‑Sixth Pay Commission and lack of autonomous power without DoPT/UGC direction.
  • The Court further noted that the judgment in WP(C) No. 135 of 2025 is pending consideration in W.A. No. 41 of 2026 and its directions are stayed, therefore cannot be relied upon.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions, holding that NEHU cannot regularise the petitioners without the requisite qualifications and without specific statutory or DoPT/UGC directions.

Topics: Regularisation, Higher Education Employment, Court Judgment