Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 53 (MEG)

Pynwandurlang Shabong v. State of Meghalaya

2013-11-20

PRAFULLA C.PANT, S.R.SEN

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant; C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C)(SH) No. 81/2012, whereby the relief has been declined to the writ petitioner. Heard Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Also heard Ms. Y. Shylla, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, and perused papers on record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Synod College, Shillong is a deficit Grant-in-Aid college of the State of Meghalaya. By the said college, an advertisement was issued for filling up of post of Lecturer in Khasi on 23.11.2011. The writ petitioner who not only holds Master Degree in Khasi but also completed Masters in Philosophy (M. Phil) was fully qualified for the post. In response to the advertisement, as such he also submitted his candidature, and declared successful in the written test along with 7(seven) others. The interview was conducted on 23.02.2012. It is pleaded in the writ petition that though the writ petitioner performed exceptionally well but to his shock and surprise, respondent No. 6 (Shri. W. Marchtime Kharrynki) was declared successful and the petitioner was shown securing 2nd position to him with 56.8% marks as against respondent No. 6 who secured 1st position with 66.2% marks. According to the petitioner, the candidates with M.Phil Degree were to be preferred against others but respondent No. 6, who was not M.Phil Degree holder was preferred to the petitioner who had M.Phil Degree to his credit. Alleging that the selection of respondent No. 6 is arbitrarily and illegal, the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner. 3. Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 in their counter affidavit they have stated that the Degree of M.Phil is no longer recognized by the University Grant Commission (for short 'UGC) for the purpose of selection of appointment of Assistant Professor/Lecturer. It is disputed that respondent No. 6 did not possess necessary qualification rather he held Degree of Ph.D. (registered on 16.05.2006) and secured more marks than petitioner. 4. It is disputed that respondent No. 6 did not possess necessary qualification rather he held Degree of Ph.D. (registered on 16.05.2006) and secured more marks than petitioner. 4. Respondent No. 6, in his counter affidavit stated that M. Phil, was not the necessary qualification of the post and he (respondent No. 6) was validly selected for the post of Lecturer in Khasi in Synod College for which the respondent No. 2 has already given his approval, consequently, he has already joined duty on 07.04.2012. The answering respondent further stated that he holds Ph.D. Degree (registered in 2006). It is also pleaded by him that otherwise also he secured higher marks in the selection process. 5. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, took the view that preference of M.Phil could have been given only if the other things being equal but since the respondent No. 6 secured more marks, as such, the petitioner cannot claim preference over him. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, on behalf of the writ petitioner, it is argued that respondent No. 6 was arbitrarily selected favouring him without adhering to the guidelines issued by the UGC. It is also contended that in the interview, marks were not classified as to on what account the same were awarded to the candidates. 7. In reply to this on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that not only the recruitment was made through open advertisement, and after holding written test, but with all fairness. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact that as per UGC Minutes dated 27.09.2010 (Annexure-V to the writ petition), the recognition of M.Phil for exemption from National Eligibility Test was discontinued. In this connection, it is further pointed out that the writ petitioner obtained Degree of M.Phil on 30.09.2011 (Annexure-3/B to the writ appeal) i.e. after 27.09.2010. It is also further pointed out that as against this, the Degree of Ph.D. obtained by the respondent No. 6 was valid for exemption from National Eligibility Test as he was registered in the year 2006 i.e. much before 27.09.2010. 8. After going through the record of the writ petition, in the above circumstances, we find that there is no illegality committed by the respondents No. 3 - 5 in selecting respondent No. 6. 8. After going through the record of the writ petition, in the above circumstances, we find that there is no illegality committed by the respondents No. 3 - 5 in selecting respondent No. 6. Perusal of the table of marks awarded to the 8(eight) candidates, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A/7 to the additional affidavit filed by the writ petitioner shows that almost all the members of the Interview Board have awarded more marks to the respondent No. 6 as against the present petitioner. As such, it does not appear that respondent No. 6 was arbitrarily preferred against the present petitioner. 9. Regarding the claim of preference on the ground of M.Phil Degree is concerned, we agree with the learned Single Judge that preferential qualification could have been considered only when two candidates were on the equal footing. Since the marks of respondent No. 6 were 66.2% against the marks of the petitioner i.e. 56.8% after written test and interview as such, it cannot be said that he was to be preferred against the respondent No. 6. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.