Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3 (MEG)

Siljak R. Marak v. D. P. Wahlang

2016-06-20

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. In this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks to allege violation of the order dated 26.05.2016, as passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 170 of 2016. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any case of deliberate and wilful disobedience by the respondents. 3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner has filed a writ petition aforesaid while stating the grievance that she was being denied the chance to appear in the personal interviews scheduled to be held on 26.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 in connection with recruitment to the post of Garo Lecturer in Government Colleges of Meghalaya. 4. On the contentions as urged by the petitioner that under the scheme of selection, the merit is to be prepared on the basis of marks of written examination and personal interview and, therefore, there was no reason for not including her in the personal interview, the learned Single Judge referred to the notification dated 06.05.2016 issued by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission, whereby 30 candidates were called for the interview as against 10 vacancies but then, found the matter requiring consideration if the said notification was in conformity with the advertisement or not. Therefore, notices were ordered to be issued. Appearance was put by Mr. S Sen Gupta, Government Advocate and the petitioner was directed to take steps for service on the other respondents. It was further directed that in the meantime, the respondents shall keep one post of Garo Lecturer in Government Colleges of Meghalaya vacant until disposal of the writ petition. It is, however, clear that the Court did not stay the process of interviews slated for 26th and 27th May, 2016. 5. It appears that the process of interviews was carried out as scheduled and thereafter, the Meghalaya Public Service Commission proceeded to issue the notification dated 30.05.2016 declaring the result of interviews and the names of the successful candidates as being recommended for appointment. Even while making recommendation in respect of 10 successful candidates, the Commission made it clear that such recommendation was not to confer any claim for appointment unless the appointing authority was satisfied, after necessary enquiry, that the candidates were suitable in all respects. 6. Even while making recommendation in respect of 10 successful candidates, the Commission made it clear that such recommendation was not to confer any claim for appointment unless the appointing authority was satisfied, after necessary enquiry, that the candidates were suitable in all respects. 6. Thus, it is clear that the Commission has only declared the result of interviews but the orders of appointment are yet to be issued. Mere declaration of the result by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission cannot, in any manner, be considered conflicting with the order passed by this Court directing one post to be kept vacant. 7. In view of the above, for there being no case of wilful or deliberate disobedience, this Court finds no reason to take cognizance of contempt in this matter. This contempt petition stands rejected.