Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 150 (MEG)

Jude Rangku T. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2019-05-13

H.S.THANGKHIEW, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. By medium of these three appeals, judgment dated 05-03-2019 passed in writ petitions bearing WP(C) No.301/2018, WP(C) No.302/2018 and WP(C) No.306/2018 is assailed. 2. In terms of the judgment impugned all the three writ petitions have been dismissed on two counts, first, that the petitioners have approached the Court after a long gap of time, second, on merit. The learned Single Judge has concluded as under: "I find that the petitioners have approached the Court after a long gap of time and from the angle of merit also, it appears from the gradation list prepared by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission that the petitioners are below in rank. Besides that, in my view, merit should be given priority. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that all these three petitions cannot be considered." 3. Vide advertisement notice dated 22nd November, 2006, Meghalaya Public Service Commission, Shillong (MPSC) invited applications for recruitment to the Meghalaya Civil Services, the process of selection resulted in selection and appointment of 38 candidates to the Junior Grade of MCS notified by the Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel & AR (A) Department vide No. PER. 56/2010/152, dated 1st December, 2010 and also selection and appointment of 11 candidates as Junior Grade of MPS. 4. On the basis of the same selection process again 33 candidates to the Junior Grade of MCS were appointed vide Notification No. PER. 56/2010/293, dated 8th May, 2012. 5. Provisional gradation list of the members of MCS was notified vide Notification No. PER. 120/83/438, dated 20th June, 2014 for information and representation, if any within 30 days. Petitioners appear to have represented first in the year 2014 then again in the year 2017 but their representations were rejected, aggrieved whereof three writ petitions were filed with a prayer to set aside and quash the gradation list published on 20th June, 2014 vide Notification No. PER.120/83/438, with a further prayer to command respondent No. 1 to prepare fresh gradation list and to protect seniority of the petitioners appointed in the year 2010. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 1 amongst other averments it has been averred that the validity of the result of the Combined MCS and MPS Competitive Examination, 2010 declared by MPSC was extended from time to time. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 1 amongst other averments it has been averred that the validity of the result of the Combined MCS and MPS Competitive Examination, 2010 declared by MPSC was extended from time to time. During the extension period in the year 2012, 33 candidates were appointed to MCS including those who had already joined MPS as their first preference. 7. It is further stated that the gradation list was prepared by the Department as per Rule 16(4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules, 1975 which provides that the seniority of the members of the service shall be in the order in which their names appear in the list prepared under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6 or approved under Rule 8. Petitioners were inferior in merit and were placed below the respondents in order of merit in the select list. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2010 in tune with reservation policy. 8. The question which arise for consideration is as to whether the candidates appointed in the year 2010 can be placed in the gradation list below the candidates who were appointed in the year 2012. The stand of the respondent No. 1 is that the names of the successful candidates figured in the select list in the order of merit, in short, according to the respondents No. 1, 74 candidates figured in the merit list but only 38 were appointed as Junior Grade MCS and 11 as Junior Grade MPS, in the process while giving representation to the reserved category candidates with inferior merit were appointed in the year 2010. 9. In the year 2012, the private respondents were appointed but in the original merit list they figured above the petitioners, therefore, while following Rule 16(4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules, in the gradation list, they were given placement in the seniority list as per merit. 10. Learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that they have filed their reply only on the date of hearing means at the time of hearing pleadings were not complete. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that they have filed their reply only on the date of hearing means at the time of hearing pleadings were not complete. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that he has obtained information under Right to Information Act which he has placed on record so as to show that at the time of issue of advertisement notice the total number of vacancies were 40 and those 40 vacancies were filled up after giving due representation to the reserve categories. 12. According to learned counsel, the vacancies which arose after the advertisement notice were filled up in the year 2012 but on the basis of same, selection process held in the year 2010 which was impermissible. According to him for those vacancies there should have been a fresh advertisement notice, he may not have any grievance about their appointment but their appointment for all practical purpose shall reckon only from the year 2012, therefore, by no means they can rank senior to the petitioners. 13. According to learned AAG, the practice prevalent has been followed, if same is disturbed that may have far reaching effects. 14. After considering the record and submissions as made by the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered view, learned Single Judge has not addressed all the issues in the background of the facts and the position of law. Learned Single Judge has simply observed as quoted above that the petitioners have approached the Court after a long gap of time and from the angle of merit also gradation list has been prepared wherein merit has been given priority. 15. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge is not well reasoned, firstly, provisional gradation list has been issued in the year 2014, the MCS Officers of batch 2010 had filed a representation in 2014 as well as 2017, the representation dated 22nd April, 2017 has been rejected on 15th September, 2017 whereas writ petitions were filed in the year 2018, therefore, the observation that the petitioners have approached the Court after a long gap of time has not been looked into properly. 16. 16. Another observation of the learned Single Judge that merit has to be given priority that cannot be denied but when only 40 vacancies were available in the year 2010, same have been filled up and in case no other vacancies would have accrued, then the candidates appointed in 2012 had no chance of any appointment, they appear to be chance beneficiaries. 17. Rule 16(4) of the Meghalaya Civil Service Rules too has not been looked into by the learned Single Judge. The pleadings too were not complete, therefore, we find it appropriate to set aside the judgment and remit the case to learned Single Judge, the parties shall complete their respective pleadings as shall be directed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter all three petitions shall be decided afresh. 18. Till the three writ petitions are finally decided, status quo viz-a-viz present position of the petitioners and private respondents as it exists today shall be maintained. 19. Registry to take necessary steps for listing all the three writ petitions before the learned Single Judge having the roster in the week following next. 20. All the three writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.