Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 139 (MEG)

Siljak R. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2019-05-06

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Respondent No.2 MPSC vide Notification No. MPSC/ADVT-38/1/2014-2015/50, dated 24.03.2015 invited applications for recruitment to the various categories of posts as specified therein, which included 10 posts of Lecturer in Garo required to be filled in Government Colleges of Meghalaya. Amongst the others, petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 appeared in the written examination. Vide Notification No. MPSC/Ex C/12/2015 2016/8 dated 06.05.2016, the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 in order of merit were called for Interview held on 26th and 27th May 2016, petitioner not having made the grade has not been included therein. Aggrieved whereof, petitioner filed the instant petition. While considering the prayer for interim relief vide order dated 26.05.2016 one post was directed to be kept vacant. 2. Respondent No. 4 later on impleaded as party, had separately filed WP(C) No. 231 of 2017 with a prayer to direct the respondents therein to appoint the petitioner to the vacant post of Lecturer in Garo on regular basis pursuant to selection declared vide Notification dated 30.05.2016 issued by the MPSC in terms whereof, 10 candidates including the petitioner (Smt. Nikme Rechil Marak) were recommended for appointment. Other 9 candidates figuring at Sl. Nos. 1 to 9 in the Notification were appointed whereas, the petitioner Smt. Nikme Rechil Marak figuring at Sl. No. 10 was not appointed, obviously for the reason that an interim direction was passed, in the petition filed by Smt. Siljak R. Marak, for keeping one post vacant, this is how both two petitions have been clubbed, as such have come up for hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 170 of 2016 would submit that basically, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Garo vide Notification dated 08.11.2011 subject to discharge without notice but subsequently, she was selected for being permanently appointed but that selection process was quashed vide judgment dated 07.05.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 341 of 2013. The said judgment was affirmed in appeal, thereafter, it was not further challenged. As a result whereof, MPSC issued Notification for filling up the various posts which included 10 posts of Lecturer in Garo, petitioner also admittedly participated in the process. 4. The said judgment was affirmed in appeal, thereafter, it was not further challenged. As a result whereof, MPSC issued Notification for filling up the various posts which included 10 posts of Lecturer in Garo, petitioner also admittedly participated in the process. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Notification, the written examination was to be followed by personal interview, so as to project that once the petitioner had taken the written examination she should have been called for interview and it is after the interview it could be ascertained as to whether she could have made the grade or not. The submission is totally misplaced, clause 4 of the Notification dated 24.03.2015 is a clear answer to his submission. Clause 4 of the Notification in this behalf provides as under, .....On the result of such Screening Test/Written Examination the Commission shall call such number of candidates as it may think appropriate to appear for the Personal Interviews. The principle/policy followed by the Commission is that the ratio of the number of candidates called for interview to the vacancies should be limited to 1:2 to 1:5. In recruitments involving very few posts the ratio can be raised up to 1:10. 5. It is the positive stand of the MPSC that they have called the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 therefore, as against 10 posts 30 candidates in order of merit from amongst the candidates who had taken the written examination were called for interview and out of 30 finally 10 were selected which including respondent No. 4, figuring at Sl. No. 10. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that basically, petitioner was initially engaged as Lecturer in Garo in the year 2011, now she has crossed the age bar, chances of getting any employment, are very bleak for her, therefore, her candidature should have been sympathetically considered. Submission cannot be accepted. Once the petitioner has competed for the post consciously and has failed to make the grade cannot claim any type of adjustment as against the post advertised. The selection process which has culminated in selection of the 10 candidates including respondent No 4, out of 10 candidates 9 candidates have been appointed unfortunately, respondent No. 4 was figuring at Sl. No. 10 so was not appointed in view of the ad-interim protection providing for keeping one post vacant. 7. The selection process which has culminated in selection of the 10 candidates including respondent No 4, out of 10 candidates 9 candidates have been appointed unfortunately, respondent No. 4 was figuring at Sl. No. 10 so was not appointed in view of the ad-interim protection providing for keeping one post vacant. 7. Respondent No. 4 has unnecessarily suffered. She also had filed a separate petition WP(C) No. 231 of 2017 which means she has been clamouring for justice, which in effect has been stalled by the petitioner without any justification. 8. The petition filed by Smt. Siljak R. Marak being WP(C) No. 170 of 2016 is absolutely without any merit, as such dismissed. The petition filed by respondent No. 4 being WP(C) No. 231 of 2017 is allowed. The respondent No. 1 shall ensure that necessary steps are taken for giving effect to the recommendation regarding Smt. Nikme R. Marak, made vide Notification dated 30.05.2016, and her appointment shall be given effect notionally from the date the 9 other candidates selected along with her, have been appointed. The exercise shall be undertaken and completed within four weeks. 9. Imposition of heavy costs is warranted against the petitioner for having unnecessarily stalled the recommendation for appointment of respondent No. 4 but for the weak financial condition of the petitioner Smt. Siljak R. Marak, no order as to costs. 10. Both the petitions shall stand disposed of as above.