Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 228 (GAU)

S. Kherali Sumi v. State of Nagaland and Ors.

1997-10-20

H.K.SEMA

body1997
In this civil rule, the rule was issued on 22.8.97 returnable by today. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case which brooks no delay, it was made clear that the matter shall be disposed of on the returnable date. Learned Junior Govt. Advocate was also directed to produce the relevant records. At the same time, the appropriate authority who are having the custody of the relevant file was also directed to hand over the relevant file to the learned Junior Govt. Advocate failing which culpable consequences would follow. 2. At the outset, Mr. EY Renthungo. learned Junior Govt. Advocate produced letter dated 22nd August, 1997 written by him addressed to respondents 1 and 2 to made the relevant records available to him as directed by this Court. It is unfortunate that despite of the serious observation made by this Court and the communication dated 22nd August. 1997, the concerned authority failed to made over the relevant records. It is also noticed the office note dated 30.8.97 which says that notice upon the respondents 3 to 25 has been issued through Chief Engineer (R&B). The allegation in this writ petition is that candidates whose cases have not been recommended by the Selection Committee and in fact the candidates who have secured less than the qualified marks have been appointed to the post of LDA and because of this allegation, the appointment of the respondents 3 to 25 to the post of LDA in Public Works Department (R&B) have been suspended by this Court on 22.8.97 pending disposal of the rule. 3.1 have heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. EY Renthungo, learned Junior Government Advocate. 4. The most unpleasant facts of this case shocks the judicial conscience, it illustrates how the authority possessing power exercises the power vested in them most arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This observation lends support by the circumstances recited hereinafter. 5. The undisputed facts are these. 33 posts of LDA in the Department of PWD (R&B) have been advertised. 22 posts are to be filled up from the general category and 11 posts are reserved for the backward category. Altogether 723 applications have been received. By notification dated 21st November, 1996. Selection Committee has been constituted. Thereafter, the interview was held on 18th December, 1996. 33 posts of LDA in the Department of PWD (R&B) have been advertised. 22 posts are to be filled up from the general category and 11 posts are reserved for the backward category. Altogether 723 applications have been received. By notification dated 21st November, 1996. Selection Committee has been constituted. Thereafter, the interview was held on 18th December, 1996. The result was declared on 7.4.97 recommending the candidates for the post of LDA in the order of merit. The Selection Committee has recommended candidates from the general category who have secured 40% of marks and above for filling up 22 posts from general category. Selection Committee also recommended the candidates from the backward category who have secured 25% of marks and above for appointment to the 11 posts of backward category. Thereafter, the competent authority hanged the list of appointee in the notice board on the basis of interview held on 18th December. 1996 and the result declared on 7.4.97. Altogether. 36 appointments have been made. 3 posts in excess of the posts advertised. 6. From the list of appointee annexed as Annexure D in this writ petition, it clearly appears that except serial No. 1 to 8 who have secured qualified marks from the general category and serial No.9 to 12 and 35 who have secured qualified marks from the backward category, the appointments from SI.No. 13 to 34 and 36 have been appointed who have secured less marks than the qualified marks recommended by the Selection Committee and some of the respondents secured zero whereas the other candidates including the petitioner who have secured qualified marks and recommended by the Selection Committee have not been appointed. The petitioner's name appeared in SI .No. 5 of the select list and she secured 57 marks. During the pendency of this writ petition, Mr. EY Renthungo produced an appointment order dated 14.7.97 showing that the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of interview held on 18th December. 1996 and the result declared on 7.4.1997. To me this is a play to escape from the clutches of the rule of law because as already observed that the appointments have already been made in excess of the posts requisitioned, by appointing the candidates who are not recommended by the Selection Committee. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. 1996 and the result declared on 7.4.1997. To me this is a play to escape from the clutches of the rule of law because as already observed that the appointments have already been made in excess of the posts requisitioned, by appointing the candidates who are not recommended by the Selection Committee. 7. It is further submitted by Mr. EY Renthungo that the petitioner's name could not be included in the list of appointment through inadvertence. This submission cannot be accepted because respondents 3 to 25 have been appointed although they secured less than the qualified marks and their cases have not been recommended by the Selection Committee. 8. The index shown below would show that the respondents 3 to 25 have secured less than qualified marks and are not recommended by the Selection Committee but the}' have been appointed. Sl.No. Respondent No. Roll No. Name Marks obtained Category 13 3 288 Shri Neisatuo 16 General 14. 4 20 SmtiKeivsiu 18 General 15. 5 312 Smt Vezotalu Demo 30 General 16. 6 337 Sri Chusatuo Angami 09 General 17. 25 434 Kevilenuo Kire 31 General (No.55 in select list) 18. 8 161 SriSMPhom 12 General 19. 9 657 Thepmsanyu Angami 24 General 20. 10 168 SriScuYhor 21 General 21. 11 670 Smt Kh«li»beinuo 03 General 22. 12 310 SmtJeanny 19 General 23. 13 311 Sri Keduokholie 09 General 24. 14 711 SmtMoakala 35 General (No 39 in the select list) 25. 15 278 SriVisekulie 10 General 26. 16 10 Sri Dziesevilhou 00 General 27. 17 360 Sri Kezhalhoulie 23 General 28. 18 358 Sri Thinuozelhou 07 General 29. 20 131 SriYongmei 00 General 30. 21 87 Smt Neiwetsolo-B 21 General 31. 22 681 SriZeputuo 18 General 32. 23 357 Sri Razouvituo 19 General 33. 24 19 SriSCTonia 05 General 34. 7 -362 Smt Ruyabeinuo 13 General 35. 19 673 Smt Tshapitongla 18 General 9. From the index of marks secured by the respondents 3 to 25. it would clearly show that they have not secured qualified marks and their cases are not recommended but they have been appointed. This is a mockery of selection process and a slap on the face of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In a democratic country like ours governed by the rule of law. such practice is clearly impermissible. 10. This is a mockery of selection process and a slap on the face of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In a democratic country like ours governed by the rule of law. such practice is clearly impermissible. 10. As a matter of abundant caution, this Court on 22.8.97 directed notice to be issued upon the respondents 3 to 25. Office note dated 30.8.97 indicates that notice has been issued through the respondent No.2. It is. therefore, presumed that notice deems to have been served. However, since no indefeasible right has been accrued to the respondents 3 to 25, they cannot plead violation of the rule of natural justice. Rule of natural justice are not embodied rules. Its application depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be put in rigid formula. In order to sustain the complain of the violation of the rule of natural justice, one must established that the prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of the rule of natural justice. In the instant case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the respondents 3 to 25 as they are not qualified for consideration of appointment to the posts of LD A and they have no right to be considered. In fact, the action of the respondent Govt. has not only shaken the judicial conscience but has shaken the confidence of the public in the authority. 11. For the reasons aforestated. die appointment of respondents 3 to 25 as LDA in the Works and Housing Department under Chief Engineer (R&B) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to appoint the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee in its sitting held on 18th December 1996 and the result declared on 7.4.97 strictly in the order of merit serially as shown in the result published on 7.4.97. At the risk of repetition, the appointment shall be made strictly in the order of merit of the result declared on 7.4.97 till all the vacant posts are filled up. This shall be done within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Registry is directed to serve copy of this order to respondents 1 and 2 and obtain the receipt. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. No costs.