20.02.2026 vs Union Of India Represented By on 20 February, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Decision: 20.02.2026 vs Union Of India Represented By on 20 February, 2026

Author: H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew

                                                         2026:MLHC:93




 Serial No. 06
 Supplementary List
                  HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                        AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 464 of 2024
                                 Date of Decision: 20.02.2026

Shri G/2099 Hav/GD Ran Vijay Singh,
S/o Late Shatrughan Singh, aged about 49 years,
G/2099 Hav/GD (Diploma qualified in Civil Engineering),
Presently posted at Assam Rifles Training Centre & School,
Dimapur (Engineer Branch), Dimapur, Nagaland
                                                  ..... Petitioner(s)
            - Versus -

1. Union of India represented by
   The Secretary to the Government of India,
   Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
   New Delhi-110001.

2. Director General Assam Rilfes, Mahanideshalaya,
   (The Directorate General Assam Rifles),
   Shillong-793011, Meghalaya.

3. Brigadier (Personnel)
   Directorate General Assam Rifles,
   Meghalaya, Shillong-793011.                 ... Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Chanda, Adv. with
Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.

Page 1 of 5

2026:MLHC:93

__________________________________________________________

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 11.07.2024, whereby the respondents had rejected the case of the

petitioner for relaxation of the Recruitment Rules, 1999, for consideration

of appointment through remusteration to the post of Naib Subedar as

provided under the Assam Rifles Recruitment Rules, 1999, is before this

Court with the prayer that appropriate directions be passed to set aside the

impugned order of rejection, and for further directions to the respondents,

to appoint the petitioner to the post of Naib Subedar (B&R), by way of

remusteration, in the existing vacant post.

2. It is submitted by Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the

petitioner that as per the Recruitment Rules of 1999, the respondents are

vested with the power of relaxation in the matter of recruitment of Naib

Subedar (B&R), and that the respondents by the impugned order have

come to a perverse finding that there is no provision for remusteration in

the Recruitment Rules of 1999, for filling up the post of Naib Subedar,

and that the only provision is by way of Direct Recruitment. It is also

submitted that the respondents have availed the services of the petitioner

Page 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:93

for more than 17(seventeen) years, without granting any higher

remuneration, or allowing any pay benefit to the post of Naib Subedar. He

therefore, prays that the impugned order being bad in law, be set aside and

the writ petition be allowed.

3. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang,

learned counsel for the respondents in reply has submitted that for the said

post in question, there is no provision for remusteration and the post is

only to be filled up by Direct Recruitment. It is further submitted that in a

similar matter which appeared before the High Court of Manipur, a Single

Bench by an order dated 10.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 947 of 2017,

had allowed the prayer of the similarly situated petitioners, and directions

were issued for remusteration with effect from the date of completion of

Diploma Course, but that this order was taken to appeal before the

Division Bench. In the appeal it is submitted, an order dated 02.04.2025

was passed in WA 89 of 2022 and in another connected matter WA No. 4

of 2025, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the

representation of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law. The matter he submits, then travelled to the Supreme

Court, and by an order dated 27.01.2026 passed in SLP No. 16137/2025,

the SLP filed against the Writ Appeal stood dismissed. He therefore,

Page 3 of 5
2026:MLHC:93

submits that the petitioner being similarly situated, no relief can be

forthcoming.

4. Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

though this position may be correct, however the matter was never gone

into on its merits, and perhaps the writ petitioner may be given the same

allowance as given to the similarly situated petitioners in the writ petition

that was disposed of before the Manipur High Court.

5. The same is not objected by the learned DSGI for the

respondents.

6. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

on considering the materials which have been placed, especially the

Courts’ orders of the Manipur High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, without lingering with the matter considering the situation of the

case, and the fact that the respondents in the other cases have been directed

to consider the representations, in the view of this Court the same

concession can be also afforded to the writ petitioner herein.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction

that the writ petitioner file a representation within a period of 3(three)

weeks from today and the respondents directed to consider the same

within a period of 8(eight) weeks, thereafter strictly in accordance with

law.

Page 4 of 5

2026:MLHC:93

8. Till such disposal of the representation, the interim order shall

continue.

9. Accordingly, in terms of the directions contained

hereinabove, the matter stands closed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya
20.02.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.02.20 20:35:49 IST