Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 47 (MEG)

Nikiru War v. State of Meghalaya

2016-11-04

S.R.SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.R. SEN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned GA on behalf of the respondents No. 1 - 4, Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6, 8 - 14 and Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. These two writ petitions being similar in nature are taken up together by this common judgment and order. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioners are the HSLC holders and also successfully completed the 15 (Fifteenth) Months Course Training in Sericulture. In the month of September, 2010, the Respondent No.3 intimated the Respondent No.4 with the actual number of posts lying vacant in the Department of District Sericulture, West Jaintia Hills District i.e. 6 (Six) number of existing vacant. The Respondent No.4 issued an Advertisement 01.11.2012 calling for application from the interested candidates for recruitment to various categories of posts which may fall vacant in different State Government Offices/Departments in West Jaintia Hills District including the 6 (six) posts of the Sericulture Demonstrator and subsequently vide Office Corrigendum 28.11.2012 the Respondent No.4 has partially modified the earlier Advertisement dated 01.11.2012 to the extent that the number of vacancy in the post of Sericulture Demonstrator was increased from 6 to 10 in number. Further on the application filed under RTI Act, the Petitioners was informed that the actual number of Sericulture Demonstrator lying at the office of the Respondent No.3 are 12 in number as on 02.06.2014. The Petitioners having fulfilled the requisite qualification submitted their applications for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator and on basis of the Result of the Aptitude Written Test and the personal interview conducted the Respondent No.4/District Selection Committee drawn up the List of the successful candidates in order of merit and declared the Final Result and recommend the names of the successful Candidates including the Petitioners to the Respondent No.3 for filling up the existing vacancy. Due to the delay in issuing appointment order by the officials Respondents, the Petitioners submitted a Representation to the Respondent No.2/Director of Sericulture & Weaving seeking his/her intervention in the matter. Due to the delay in issuing appointment order by the officials Respondents, the Petitioners submitted a Representation to the Respondent No.2/Director of Sericulture & Weaving seeking his/her intervention in the matter. However, the Respondent No.2 instead appointing the Petitioners or issuing appointment orders to the panel of selected candidates as recommended by the Respondent No.4, allowed the Private respondents to officiate the existing vacant posts and even resorted to grant appointment to outsiders who were not the selectees of the Advertisement dated 01.11.2012 and dated 28.11.2012 and who had not gone through the Selection process. In view of the said illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory act on the part of the official respondents, the Petitioners left with no alternative remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Court, seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the Official Respondents to consider the appointment of the Petitioners to the post of Sericulture Demonstrator in terms of the Select list issued by the Respondent No.4/District Selection Committee." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Banik submits that the petitioners in response to the Advertisement dated 01.11.2012 applied for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator and the qualification prescribed was Matriculate with 15 Months Certificate Course in Sericulture. Subsequently, the respondents issued a Corrigendum dated 28.11.2012 where it specified that the qualification required for Sericulture Demonstrator is 15 months course trained at Sericulture Training Institute Ummulong with 2(two) years experience. Petitioner appeared for the examination and qualified himself and his name appeared in the select list but he was not appointed, rather some other persons from outside the select list were appointed who did not even sit for the examination, hence this petition praying that the entire examination process and the adhoc appointees maybe declared null and void. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, Mr. A.H. Hazarika submits that since the District Selection Committee had selected the persons bypassing the terms and conditions of the advertisement specified in the Corrigendum dated 28.11.2012 at Sl.3, the Sericulture Department had rejected the select list partially as it was not as per the terms and conditions of the Corrigendum at Sl.3 and due to urgency, they appointed some other persons on adhoc basis from outside the select list who have not even participated in the selection process. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. H.L. Shangreiso appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 5, 6, 8-14 submits that respondents No. 5-10 had participated in the examination and successfully qualified in the selection process. However, learned counsel admits that respondents No. 11-14 have not participated in the examination process nor qualified themselves in the selection process. He further submits that respondents No. 5-10 are also having 2(two) years experience, so they maybe allowed to continue with their service. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that Sericulture Department has rightly rejected the select list partially pertaining to the candidates who did not possess the requisite qualification as per the terms and conditions specified in the advertisement mentioned above. However, they have no right and power to appoint any person on adhoc basis who did not take part in the selection process nor possessed the requisite qualification as per the terms and conditions i.e. respondents No. 11-16. Therefore, those candidates needs to be removed immediately and to send requisition to the District Selection Committee for fresh selection of the remaining vacant post including the vacancy which will arise after removal of those adhoc appointees. I also further do not agree that the candidates should be trained at Sericulture Training Institute Ummulong. There are many other recognised institutions available in India. Therefore, the District Selection Committee is directed not to only select candidates trained at Sericulture Training Institute Ummulong but should make it open so that candidates from other institutions should get equal opportunity to apply for the posts and sit for the examination. Lastly, it is also directed that the petitioners as well as those other employees who were ordered to be removed immediately should be allowed to sit for the examination by relaxing their age provided that they possess the requisite qualification as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 7. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.