Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 63 (MEG)

State of Meghalaya v. Bikendra Hajong

2013-12-13

PRAFULLA C.PANT, S.R.SEN

body2013
Judgment Sudip Ranjan Sen, J. 1. This instant writ appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 25.10.11 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 32 (SH) of 2010. The brief facts of the case in nut shell are that, "Deputy Inspector of School West Garo Hills District, Dadenggre, Meghalaya, vide Advertisement dated 18.12.08 published in the Shillong Times invited applications from the eligible candidates to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the Government Lower Primary School in Dadenggre Sub Division, West Garo Hills District Meghalaya The Respondents/Writ Petitioners in response to the said advertisement dated 18.12.08 applied for the post of Assistant Teachers. A General Notice was published in the Shillong Times dated 13.8.2009 wherein the date of interview on 24.8.2009 in respect of Respondents/Writ Petitioners was fixed. After the completion of the personal interviews the Select List dated 23.12.2009 was published containing the list of Candidates who qualified for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the Government L.P. School under Dadenggre Sub Division (Annexure- 7 to the Writ Petition). The names of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners appeared in Sl. No. 148, 201 and 327 respectively in the list of eligible candidates. However, the names of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners No. 1 and 3 were not included in the Select List of the successful candidates in view of the fact that the said Respondents/Writ Petitioners failed to secure pass marks for inclusion of the names in the Select List of the successful candidates. However, the name of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner No. 3 was listed at Sl. No. 31 in the Waiting List. 2. The Particulars of the Respondents/Writ Petitioners are given herein below:- 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid select list of the successful candidates the Respondents/Writ Petitioners have challenged the same before this Court, on the ground that the State Reservation Policy was not followed and that the merit list was not prepared, in accordance with rules. 4. The aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner was contested by the Appellant by filling an affidavit-in-opposition. The Learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2011 disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside and quashing the select list dated 23.12.09." 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order, the appellant approached this Court by way of this instant Writ Appeal. 6. Mr. The Learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2011 disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside and quashing the select list dated 23.12.09." 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order, the appellant approached this Court by way of this instant Writ Appeal. 6. Mr. K. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for on behalf of the appellant-State argued that, the learned Single Judge has erred in facts and law in quashing the Select List dated 23.12.09, so the same needs to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued that, the writ petitioners No. 1 & 3 were unsuccessful candidates who appeared for the Personal Interview for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Lower Primary School and failed to secure the qualifying marks, therefore, they have no locus-standi to challenge the Select List. 7. The learned counsel also argued that since in the writ petition, those who were appointed were not impleaded as parties; the learned Single Judge should have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of selected candidates. He also argued that in the Government Lower Primary School, the medium of teachings is local language, therefore, the recruitment was conducted District-wise and Sub-Division-wise to get the local candidates who are acquainted with the medium of language. 8. The learned counsel also further argued that, since the medium of teaching is not khasi language in Dadenggre area, so no khasi candidates applied for the said post. He also argued that, in Dadenggre Sub-Division, the medium of teaching is Assamese and almost 40% of the vacancies belonged to Assamese Medium School, as such, Muslim and other minority community have been considered for appointment. 9. The learned counsel further argued that in the meantime, respondent No. 2 namely; Smti. Parul Bala Hajong has already been appointed and the other writ petitioners could not be accommodated as they secured much less marks than the benchmark fixed as 31%. 10. Mr. B. Bhattarcharjee, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (the candidate in waiting list) submitted that, he has nothing to say further since the respondent No. 2 has already been appointed and joined service. 11. Mr. B.K. Dey Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 3 argued that, Reservation Policy of the Government has not been followed. 12. 11. Mr. B.K. Dey Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 3 argued that, Reservation Policy of the Government has not been followed. 12. It is an admitted fact that, as per the Reservation Policy of the Government of Meghalaya, 40% vacancies are reserved for the Khasi & Jaintia, 40% for the Garo community, 5% for the other SC/ST and 15% for General category. 13. We have perused carefully the Judgment & Order dated 25.10.11 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 32 (SH) of 2010 and after careful reading of the said Judgment & Order taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to agree with the decision of the Learned Single Judge because when 5% posts were reserved for other categories of tribes of Meghalaya out of 76 number of posts re-advertised, then in that case the quota of other tribes reserved is only 3.8% that means, 4 vacancies arise for the other categories under the Reservation Policy. But in this instant case from Annexure-VII it appears that 9 persons of other tribes have already been accommodated and appointed which is much higher in number than the reserved posts of said category. 14. We are also of the view that, since the medium of instruction for the posts of Assistant Teachers advertised is Assamese, therefore, the appointing authority also will have to keep in mind that whoever is appointed they should have a sound knowledge of language which used for medium of instruction. Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in the advertisement seeking district-wise candidates. Reservation Policy has to be followed in the manner it serves the purpose for which appointment is sought for. 15. Lastly, it is an admitted fact that, respondents No. 1 & 3 have obtained less marks than the cut-off marks, as such, in our view they cannot be appointed otherwise each and everyone whether qualified or not, will start approaching the Court. 16. For the reasons as discussed above, we disagree with the decision of the Learned Single Judge, hence, the impugned order dated 25.10.11 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this instant Appeal is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.