Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1269 (GAU)

Biritach v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2019-11-22

NANI TAGIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Nani Tagia, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Nibo, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also, heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, representing the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 2. The writ petitioners, stated to be working as District Project Coordinators of Samagra Shiksha/ISSE have filed this writ petition with the following prayers: (i) For quashing and setting aside the impugned order vide file No. AR/ISSE/PA-MISC/3/2018-19 Dated 5th July 2019 in the pending disposal of this instant writ petition. (ii) For direction to the respondent authority more particularly the respondent No. 6 to modify/alter or cancelled the interview order dated 5th July 2019. (iii) For recalling of transfer order issued by respondent No. 4 to recall/cancelled the transfer order No. ED.2/DSE/492/TGT/2019/02 dated 31st May, 2019. (iv) For direction to the respondent for complying/to conduct the interview at par with the Government order CAB/M-10/2018, 704-17 dated 20th August 2018. 3. Mr. Nibo, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that in so far as prayer No. 3 is concerned, the same has be-come infructuous and the petitioners would not press for the same. 4. The order impugned in the instant writ petition is the advertisement dated 05.07.2019, issued by the Deputy State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Society/ISSE, Arunachal Pradesh, vide File No. AR/ISSE/PA-MISC/3/2018-19, whereby, applications have been invited from the bona fide eligible Officers/Officials of Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in prescribed format to be engaged as District Project Coordinators (DPC) of Samagra Shiksha/ISSE on attachment basis for assisting the Deputy Commissioner-cum-DPD & DDSE-cum-DPO in implementation of Samagra Shiksha Scheme of all PAB approved or MHRD approved Educational District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for a period of 2 (two) years. 5. In the aforesaid advertisement dated 05.07.2019, the respondent authorities have, for the purpose of recruitment of DPC, for a period of 2 (two) years as indicated, therein, have prescribed as many as 6 (six) eligibility conditions, which are quoted, herein, below: 6. It is the case of the writ petitioners that eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, is not rentable to either any Recruitment Rule pertaining to the post of DPC or any definite Guidelines/Policies followed by the State Government for the purpose of recruitment for the post of DPC. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioners that eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, is not rentable to either any Recruitment Rule pertaining to the post of DPC or any definite Guidelines/Policies followed by the State Government for the purpose of recruitment for the post of DPC. 7. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that for the recruitment of DPC, minutes of State Cabinet meeting held on 10.08.2018, notified by the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary to the Cabinet Government of Arunachal Pradesh, dated 20.08.2018, vide Memo No. CAB/M-10/2018/704-17 [Annexure-E (colly) to the writ petition] ought to have been followed by the respondent authorities. The eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement dated 05.07.2019, is not to be found any-where in the cabinet decision dated 10.8.2018, as notified on 20.08.2018 by the Chief Secretary as indicated, herein, above. Accordingly, the writ petitioners contend that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, has been prescribed by the respondent authority, without any basis to prescribe such a qualification, for which the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 8. The Education Department, the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, have contested the writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit wherein, in paragraph-8 it has been stated that advertisement dated 05.07.2019 was issued on the basis of State cabinet decision taken on 02.06.2019 and also, after obtaining due administrative approval from the Minister concerned. They further states that District Project Coordinators of Samagra Shiksha/ISSE is not a regular post, hence, Recruitment Rule is not required to be framed and notified; and, necessary terms and conditions having been specifically spelt out in the advertisement, no any illegality is committed by the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019. 9. They further states that District Project Coordinators of Samagra Shiksha/ISSE is not a regular post, hence, Recruitment Rule is not required to be framed and notified; and, necessary terms and conditions having been specifically spelt out in the advertisement, no any illegality is committed by the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019. 9. With regard to the contention of the writ petitioners that while issuing the advertisement for recruitment of the post of DPC, the respondent authorities ought to have followed the cabinet decision dated 10.08.2018, as notified vide order dated 20.08.2018, by the Chief Secretary-cum-Cabinet Secretary to the Cabinet Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the respondent authorities in paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit filed, has stated that as the advertisement dated 5.7.2019 was issued on the basis of Cabinet decision dated 2.6.2019, where under, it was decided that one District Project Coordinator per District be appointed through fresh and transparent selection process, quoting of cabinet decision dated 10.8.2018, by the writ petitioners is irrelevant at this point of time. 10. Mr. M. Nibo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that eligibility criteria pre-scribed in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, not being based on the cabinet decision dated 10.8.2019, notified on 20.8.2018 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department on the other hand submits that for the purpose of recruitment for the post of DPC in a most fair and transparent way of selection process, the Cabinet meeting held on 02.06.2019, had taken a decision that under integrated scheme of school Education (ISSE), only one District Project Coordinator per district be appointed through a fresh transparent selection process and it was in pursuance thereof, that advertisement dated 05.07.2019, was issued prescribing as many as 6(six) eligibility criteria for the purpose of recruitment for the post of DPC. 12. Mr. T. Jamoh. learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, further submits that the advertisement dated 05.07.2019, having been issued in terms of the policy decision taken by the cabinet in a meeting held on 02.06.2019, this court ought not to interfere with policy decision of the State Government. Mr. 12. Mr. T. Jamoh. learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, further submits that the advertisement dated 05.07.2019, having been issued in terms of the policy decision taken by the cabinet in a meeting held on 02.06.2019, this court ought not to interfere with policy decision of the State Government. Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, further submits that there is a similar writ petition pending before this Court being WP(C) 420 (AP)/2019, which writ petition was directed to be listed along with this writ petition by order dated 15.11.2019. 13. Rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties have received due consideration of this Court. 14. On perusal of the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, issued by the Deputy State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Society/ISSE inviting application for engaging as District Project Coordinator, it is noticed that as many as 6 (six) eligibility criteria are being prescribed therein. On a question being raised by the writ petitioners as to the basis of incorporating the eligibility criteria in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, the State respondents in their counter-affidavit filed have stated that eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, was on the basis of a cabinet decision taken in its meeting held on 2.6.2019(annexed as Annexure 'II' to the counter affidavit). 15. Minutes of meeting held on 2.6.2019, relied on by the State respondents, annexed as annexure 'II' to the counter-affidavit is quoted herein below: An Extract of Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 2nd June, 2019 at 100 hrs in the Cabinet Room, Block No. 2, Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat, Itanagar 16. On perusal of the Minutes of cabinet meeting held on 02.06.2019, annexed as annexure 'II' of the counter-affidavit, I find that amongst 26 decisions the cabinet took in the meeting, the only decision with regard to the District Project Coordinator under ISSE is to be found in serial No. 4 of the decision which states "under integrated scheme of school education (ISSE) only one District Project Coordinator per District be appointed through fresh trans parent selection process". Apart from the decision at serial No. 4, as indicated herein above, I do not find any other decision taken by the cabinet in the meeting held on 2.6.2019 with regard to the recruitment of District Project Coordinator (ISSE). Apart from the decision at serial No. 4, as indicated herein above, I do not find any other decision taken by the cabinet in the meeting held on 2.6.2019 with regard to the recruitment of District Project Coordinator (ISSE). The 6 (six) eligibility-criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019 is nowhere to be found in the minutes of cabinet meeting held on 2.6.2019. Accordingly, 6 (six) eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, cannot be said to have been issued in pursuance of cabinet decision dated 2.6.2019. 17. That apart, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, have not been able to point out from the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents that on what basis the 6 (six) eligibility conditions were prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019. On a specific query made by this Court to Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, as to appraise this Court if there are any definite Recruitment Rules or in the absence of Recruitment Rule any guidelines or policy adopted by the respondent Education Department, even if not pleaded in the counter affidavit, which would indicate the basis of prescribing the 6 (six) eligibility criteria in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, have not been able to show anything from the record or off the record. 18. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondents in their counter affidavit, have stated the Cabinet decision, dated 10.08.2018, notified on 20.08.2019 [Annexure-E(colly) to the writ petition], relied on by the petitioners, to be irrelevant in view of the subsequent Cabinet decision dated 02.06.2019, on examination of it also, neither the eligibility criterias prescribed in the impugned advertisement, dated 5.7.2019, are found to be mentioned therein, nor, any definite norms of recruitment, including the eligibility criterias, for the post of 'DPC', are discernible therefrom. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement, are without any basis. 19. The norms for recruitment, including the eligibility criteria, determined by the State authorities or the employer, must be in place before the advertisement is issued. It cannot be left to the sole discretion and ipse-dixit of the authority or the employer to be incorporated at the time of advertisement. 19. The norms for recruitment, including the eligibility criteria, determined by the State authorities or the employer, must be in place before the advertisement is issued. It cannot be left to the sole discretion and ipse-dixit of the authority or the employer to be incorporated at the time of advertisement. If such a discretion is permitted, it would leave scope for maneuvering and prescribing a different norms for recruitment, including the eligibility criteria, at a different point of time of recruitment for the same post(s) depending on the authority/employer, issuing the advertisement. Casualty, in such a circumstances, would be the certainty of the norms of recruitment. 20. The recruitment process undertaken by the State authorities for appointment to a public post must be based on some definite criteria either in the form of Recruitment Rules or guidelines or some policy decision taken by the respondent authorities, which should also be made known to the general public so that public at large are in the know of the facts, what are the qualification or eligibility criteria one is required to possess if one intends to participate in the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authorities. Unless a definite eligibility criteria in recruitment for a particular post is put to public notice in advance, people would not know, what are the eligibility requirement for the post in question. 21. Certainty and definiteness of norms of recruitment, coupled with previous publication, is the true hallmark of fair and transparent process of any recruitment. It is for this reason that Recruitment Rules are framed and in its absence some definite policy or guidelines are framed for undertaking any recruitment to a public post. 22. In the instant case the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 5.7.2019, having been stated to have is-sued on the basis of cabinet meeting held on 2.6.2019, the perusal whereof, no any such decision is found to have been taken by the cabinet for prescribing the 6(six) eligibility criteria as prescribed in the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, prescribing as many 6 (six) eligibility criteria cannot be said to have issued on the basis of any definite policy of the State respondent for the purpose of recruitment of District Project Coordinator. 23. 23. In that view of the matter, this Court has no other option but to set aside and quash the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, issued by the Deputy State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Society/ISSE. Arunachal Pradesh, vide File No. AR/ISSE/PA-MISC/3/2018-19. 24. It is ordered accordingly. 25. Having set aside the impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2019, for reasons stated herein above, this Court is also of the considered view that respondent authorities would do well to evolve a definite policy of recruitment for the post of District Project Coordinator which would, undoubtedly, be in the interest of the public. 26. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.