Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 341 (GAU)

Ramhinge v. State Meghalaya

2005-04-28

ANIMA HAZARIKA, B.LAMARE

body2005
JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.K. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. B. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State Respondents and Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7. 2. These two appeals are taken up together as the same have been preferred against the order dated 10.08.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule 36 (SH) 1998. 3. The brief facts of the case is that by an advertisement dated 06.01.1997, the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (in short MPSC) invited applications for the posts of Motor vehicle Inspectors, the last date for receipt of applications was fixed on 18.02.1997. Hie qualification prescribed for the posts is as follows: QUALIFICATION: (i) Matriculation with a Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) from a recognized Institute. (ii) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State/Board of Technical Education (3 years course). (iii) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passengers motor vehicles filled with petrol and diesel engine. (iv) Must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles and valid driving licence for all 3 (three) categories of vehicles. Sd/- Secretary, Meghalaya Public Service Commission, Shillong In response to the said advertisement, the Appellants in these writ appeals and the Respondent No. 7 also applied for the post. The interview was duly conducted by the MPSC on 22, 23 and 24th July, 1997. On the basis of the interview, the two Appellants herein and the Respondent Nos. 9 to 12 in the writ petition were selected. The name of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge appeared at Serial No. 1 of the select list. On the basis of the said recommendation of the MPSC, the Appellant Shri Ram hinge was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector by order dated 20.08.1997 and he joined the post on 22.08.1997. 4. 9 to 12 in the writ petition were selected. The name of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge appeared at Serial No. 1 of the select list. On the basis of the said recommendation of the MPSC, the Appellant Shri Ram hinge was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector by order dated 20.08.1997 and he joined the post on 22.08.1997. 4. After the said recommendation of the MPSC and the appointment of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge to the post of MVI, the Respondent No. 7 made a complaint to the Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya and on the basis of the complaint an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Transport and the Commissioner found that there was no illegality in the selection of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge. 5. Failing to get select in the selection made by the MPSC and also as the report of the Commissioner of Transport is not in his favour, the Respondent No. 7 approached this Court in Civil Rule 36 (SH) 1998 assailing the selection of both the Appellants herein and also other selected candidates and also prayed for quashing of the select list prepared by the MPSC. 6. On filing of the said Civil Rule by the Respondent No. 7 as the writ Petitioner, this Court, by interim order dated 27.04.1998 directed that pending disposal of this rule, the State Respondents are directed not to make further appointment. However, the appointment of the Appellant who is Respondent No. 7 in the Civil Rule was not stayed by this Court. The said Civil Rule was however, finally decided by the impugned order dated 10.08.99 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge, has directed the State Govt. to conduct a proper enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned Respondents No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and also the District Transport Officer from whose Office the driving licence had been issued in favour of the respective Respondents, and if the driving licences are found not in accordance with law, their licences may be cancelled. In the event of the cancellation of the driving licences the recommendation along with the findings will be made over to the MPSC for cancellation of the result of the selection and in that event the State will be free to hold fresh selection to the posts. In the event of the cancellation of the driving licences the recommendation along with the findings will be made over to the MPSC for cancellation of the result of the selection and in that event the State will be free to hold fresh selection to the posts. The present writ appeals have been filed assailing the said order. However, when the appeals were admitted, the order of the learned Single Judge keeping in abeyance the appointment of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Appellant Shri Ram Hinge therefore, continued to be in this post similarly in the case of the appeal filed by Shri Sengchalak D. Shira, Writ Appeal 11 (SH) (2001) this Court has stayed the order of learned Single Judge by which the appointment of the Appellant was kept in abeyance therefore, both the Appellants have continued in the service from the date of their appointment till date. 7. The case of the writ Petitioner Sri Jessal W. Rymbai, Respondent No. 7 herein is that when the result of the selection was published by the MPSC he was surprised and shocked that his name did not appear in the select list whereas the name of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge, who is Respondent No. 7 in the writ petition was placed at Serial No. 1. What disturbed the writ Petitioner most is the fact that he is aware that the Respondent No. 7 Appellant herein neither knew how to drive nor did he posses a valid driving licence. The Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 when not known to the writ Petitioner whereas the Respondent No. 7 Appellant herein is well known to the writ Petitioner. However, the writ Petitioner made an enquiry and found that the Respondents No. 8 to 12 also did not have the valid driving licence. The main thrust made by the writ Petitioner in the writ petition with regard to the Respondent No. 7 Shri Ram Hinge is on the ground that he is well known to him and that he obtained a driving licence by manipulation. 8. Before going further into the merit of the case, it is observed that on the basis of the advertisement, the writ Petitioner as well as other private Respondents in the writ petition applied for the post. 8. Before going further into the merit of the case, it is observed that on the basis of the advertisement, the writ Petitioner as well as other private Respondents in the writ petition applied for the post. They appeared in the selection conducted on 22, 23, 24th July, 1997. On the basis of the said interview, the Respondents in the writ petition including the Appellant herein were selected. The Petitioner has failed in the interview and was not selected. According to the writ Petitioner, he was fully aware that the Respondent No. 7 Shri Ram Hinge did not have the valid driving licence, but even then he submitted himself to the interview and did not raise any objection against the Respondent No. 7, he fully cooperate with the selection process till the final result is published and the merit list was issued. On the basis of the said merit list, the Appellant herein was appointed as MVI. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. 9. It is a settled position of law, that when the candidate knows that the other candidates were not eligible for appearing in the selection, but he still submitted himself to the process of selection and awaited till the result is published by taking a chance of being selected, such a candidate cannot question the selection process by turning around and alleging that the selection process is illegal or contrary to the procedure laid down by the law. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had embarked on the matter by a wrong approach and decided to direct for the enquiry which is in our opinion is not required in view of the fact that the writ Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process in view of the settled position of law. The learned Single Judge ought to have looked into this aspect of the matter arid dismissed the writ petition on this ground alone. 10. As this aspect of the matter has not been taken up by the learned Single Judge, this Court is bound to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing for an enquiry. The learned Single Judge ought to have looked into this aspect of the matter arid dismissed the writ petition on this ground alone. 10. As this aspect of the matter has not been taken up by the learned Single Judge, this Court is bound to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing for an enquiry. Therefore, both the writ petition and the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge are liable to be dismissed/set aside and quashed. 11. Now the next question to be seen is that the writ Petitioner after the result was declared has submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Transport and the Commissioner of Transport also made an enquiry and found that there was no illegality in granting of the driving licence to the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge. This also shows that the writ Petitioner instead of approaching the Court has sought to quash the appointment of the Appellant Respondent No. 7 by administrative order over and above the selection made by the MPSC. 12. The MPSC is the body constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution which is burdened with certain powers and responsibilities; the Commission is to perform his duties as per the power vested with it. The Commission is constituted with the person having expertise in different fields. The selection made by the Commission can be set aside by the Court only if it is found that Commission acted arbitrary, capriciously and malafide and without application of mind. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing for enquiry into the selection process without going through the records of the MPSC and the procedure adopted by the MPSC while making the selection of the private Respondents in the writ petition. 13. It is a settled law that after the selection made by the expert body like the Public Service Commission the interference by the Court is very limited. The selection made can be interfered with only if it is made arbitrary, capricious and malafide, this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the learned Single Judge before passing the impugned order. The impugned order was passed casually merely on the complaint made by the writ Petitioner against the selection of the private Respondents particularly the Respondents No. 7 and 8 in the writ petition. The impugned order was passed casually merely on the complaint made by the writ Petitioner against the selection of the private Respondents particularly the Respondents No. 7 and 8 in the writ petition. As the order was passed without examining and considering the procedure adopted by the MPSC, the impugned order was passed on a mere allegation made by the writ Petitioners and statement made by the Respondents in the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary of the Department, the learned Single Judge has therefore, erred in passing the impugned order without examining the procedure adopted by the MPSC, which amount to interfering with the selection without considering the procedure adopted by the MPSC. The learned Single Judge ought to have referred back the matter to the MPSC to examine afresh on the basis of the allegation made by the writ petition(c) but instead the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order directing for an enquiry. The enquiry report was duly submitted by the Govt. and in the enquiry it is seen that the procedure adopted by the MPSC was not taken into consideration by the Government, therefore, on this ground also the enquiry conducted by the Govt. as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 14. On consideration of all the materials on record and in view of the fact that the writ petition is liable to be set aside on the ground that the writ Petitioner has assailed the selection and recommendation of the MPSC after he has failed in the interview conducted by the MPSC and that he has no more right to file the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the subsequent enquiry conducted on the basis of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge are also not tenable and liable to be set aside and quashed. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently the impugned order dated 10.08.99 and all the enquiries made on the basis of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge as contained in the order dated 10.08.1999 shall also stands quashed. 16. The writ appeals are allowed and disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.