Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 7 (MEG)

Sontush Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2015-02-03

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2015
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents. 2. At the very outset of hearing, this Court is expressing displeasure to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners for not bringing the subsequent events after filing this writ petition to the notice of the Court by filing either an application for amendment or filing additional affidavit. In the beginning of hearing of this writ petition, Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to a letter of the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar dated 04.03.2014 and also another letter of the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar dated 12.03.2014 addressed to him, contented that the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar under his letter dated 04.03.2014 had recommended the petitioner No. 1 and another for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak in the C & RD Blocks of East Garo Hills subject to police verification on the character and antecedent of the candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed copies of the said two letters before this Court for perusal. The said two letters also are shown to Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents for ascertaining if the respondents are denying the said two letters or not. Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents fairly contended that the respondents are not denying the said two letters dated 04.03.2014 and 12.03.2014. Accordingly, the said two letters are placed in the file of the present writ petition and marked as 'X1' and 'X2' respectively for identification and for easy reference, the said two letters dated 04.03.2014 and 12.03.2014 are quoted hereunder:- GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST GARO HILLS WILLIAMNAGAR No. EGH/DSC.I/Pt.I/2011 Dated: Williamnagar the 4th March, 2014. From: The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. To: The Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. Sub: Recommendation of candidates for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak. Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to send herewith the name of the candidates for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak in the C & RD blocks of East Garo Hills. The appointment should be subject to police verification on the character and antecedent of the candidate. Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to send herewith the name of the candidates for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak in the C & RD blocks of East Garo Hills. The appointment should be subject to police verification on the character and antecedent of the candidate. A copy of the appointment letter should be marked to the District Selection Committee. In case of the candidate not joining the post, the matter should be immediately informed to the District Selection Committee within 20 days from the date of issue of the appointment order. i. Shri. Lucash K. Sangma, S/o. Late Sencharu K. Marak, Resu Chibagok village North Garo Hills. ii. Shri. Sontush Sangma, S/o. Shri. Lucash Ch. Marak, Bolkinggre village, Williamnagar. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. No. EGH/DSC.I/Pt.I/2011 Dated: Williamnagar the 4th March, 2014. Copy to: i. The Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel AR (B) Department, Shillong for information. ii. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel AR (B) Department, Shillong for information. iii. The person concerned. Sd/- ember Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST GARO HILLS DISTRICT WILLIAMNAGAR No. EGH/DSC. 11/2013-14/84 Dated: Williamnagar the 12th March, 2014. To: Mr. A.H. Hazarika, Advocate, Gauhati High Court, Shillong Branch. Sub: Appointment/recommendation for the post of Gram Sevak. Ref: No. AHH/HNA/ADV/NTC/LTR/INT/3/3 Dtd. 07-03-2014 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above and the letter under reference, I am to inform you that the petitioners, Shri. Lucash K. Sangma and Shri. Sontush Sangma, have been recommended for appointment as Gram Sevaks under the C & RD blocks of East Garo Hills district. Hence, I would request you to drop this case forthwith and inform the petitioners to do the necessary from their end. A copy of the recommendation letter is enclosed herewith for your reference. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. 3. The fact sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition is briefly noted. The Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, Govt. A copy of the recommendation letter is enclosed herewith for your reference. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. 3. The fact sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition is briefly noted. The Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, Govt. of Meghalaya issued an advertisement dated 01.09.2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak and copy of the said advertisement dated 01.09.2009 is available at Annexure-I to the present writ petition. On perusal of the said advertisement dated 01.09.2009, it is clear that the number of posts of Gram Sevak for which advertisement had been issued are not mentioned in the advertisement itself. Therefore, from the perusal of the advertisement, it is not clear how many posts of Gram Sevak had been advertised in the said advertisement dated 01.09.2009. 4. In response to the said advertisement dated 01.09.2009, the petitioners and others appeared for twin tests for the post of Gram Sevak i.e. written examination on 23.07.2010 and viva voce test on 23.08.2011. The result of the twin tests was published vide notice dated 09.09.2011 by notifying the list of the recommended candidates as well as the candidates in the waiting list. As per the said recommended list, 10 (ten) candidates in order of merit had been recommended and 20 (twenty) candidates were kept in the waiting list. The name of the petitioners appeared at Srl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 & 19 respectively in the waiting list. The recommended candidates from Srl. No. 1-9 had already been appointed. The validity of the said list of the selected candidates and said waiting list had also been extended for another 1 (one) year 6 (six) months i.e. w.e.f. 09.09.2012 to 08.03.2014. The present writ petition was filed within the valid period of the said select list for the post of Gram Sevak. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that claim of a candidate included in the panel shall not be defeated because currency of panel expired during pendency of litigation when the candidate had staked his claim during the currency of the panel. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that claim of a candidate included in the panel shall not be defeated because currency of panel expired during pendency of litigation when the candidate had staked his claim during the currency of the panel. In the present case, the petitioners staked the claim by filing the present writ petition during the valid period of the select list for the post of Gram Sevak inasmuch as, the validity of the select list was extended to 08.03.2014 and the writ petition was filed on 05.03.2014. Regarding this settled law, it would be sufficed to refer to the Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj: (2000) 3 SCC 699 . Para 10 of the SCC in Ram Swarup Saroj's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalised in the month of November, 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October, 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of SLP before this Court, on 29.9.1999 we had directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4.11.1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14.10.1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. It is also equally well settled that the recommended candidates have no vested right for appointment for the post for which they are selected. At the same time also, the authority cannot arbitrary denied the claim of the selected candidates for appointment to the post for which they had been recommended. In the present case, it is the case of the petitioners that inspite of having vacancy in the post of Gram Sevak during the valid period of the select list, the respondents without any plausible reason, did not appoint the petitioners to the post of Gram Sevak. 6. The respondents had filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, the respondents had stated that there is no vacancy in the post of Gram Sevak. From the subsequent events, which had been aforementioned above, it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 and another person i.e. whose name appeared in the Srl. No. 10 of the list of the selected candidates had already been recommended under the said letter of the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar dated 04.03.2014, which had been quoted above in extenso for appointment to the post of Gram Sevak as there are vacancies. On perusal of the said letter dated 12.03.2014 addressed to Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that both the petitioner No. 1 and Shri. Lucash K. Sangma, whose name appeared at Srl. No. 10 of the select list are not yet been appointed because of the pendency of the present writ petition. 7. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner No. 1 to the post of Gram Sevak within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order, but for the other petitioners i.e. petitioners No. 2-9, the Govt. may consider their case for appointment if there be any vacancy in the post of Gram Sevak. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.