Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 139 (MEG)

Walseng M. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2022-05-27

SANJIB BANERJEE, WANLURA DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The limited challenge in this writ petition is to a proviso to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Taxation Service Rules, 2020. Though the prayer in the petition indicates upon 'set aside and quashed (sic) the proviso', the attack really has been on the second proviso to the sub-rule. 2. The petitioners herein were recruited to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Taxation Service Department of the State by the State Public Service Commission. The petitioners claim that they were required to have completed their school education up to the level of plus-two to be eligible to be considered for appointment. In contrast, the petitioners claim that another lot of LDAs into the Taxation Service were recruited from the Districts and not by the State Public Service Commission. The petitioners emphasise that the candidates directly recruited in the Districts were required to finish their education up to Class-X. As such, the petitioners justify, that the petitioners get a higher pay-band than those in the same post recruited from the Districts. 3. The matter herein pertains to the promotion to the post of Inspector of Taxes. Rule 7 of the said Rules of 2020 indicates the method of recruitment at various levels. Sub-rule (6) thereunder covers the post of Inspector of Taxes. In respect of Inspector of Taxes, 75 per cent of the total vacancies are required to be filled up by direct recruitment through a competitive examination. The remaining 25 per cent of the total vacancies are to be filled up by promotion from among the ministerial staff serving in the office of the Commissioner of Taxes or the Superintendent of Taxes who have rendered a minimum of five years of continuous service in the capacity of UDA or a combined service of 10 years with minimum educational qualification of Bachelor's degree in any discipline from such university as have been recognized. The first proviso to the sub-rule emphasises that the promotees to the post of Inspector of Taxes shall not at any time exceed 25 per cent of the total cadre strength. Such proviso, in effect, is repetitive of the provisions that precede it and does not really add anything new. The first proviso to the sub-rule emphasises that the promotees to the post of Inspector of Taxes shall not at any time exceed 25 per cent of the total cadre strength. Such proviso, in effect, is repetitive of the provisions that precede it and does not really add anything new. It is the second proviso to the sub-rule which is of relevance in the present case: 'Provided further that of the vacant posts under Clause (b) above, twenty-five percent shall be filled up by promotion from the ministerial staff of the Directorate Office and seventy-five percent from the ministerial staff of the District offices'. 4. The petitioners contend that since the petitioners entered the service with higher qualifications and would have spent nearly 10 years in service before being eligible for promotion, the provision by way of the said Rules of 2020 to limit the scope of promotion from those serving in the Directorate office to 25 per cent while affording the balance of 75 per cent of the promotional posts to the District office cadre is arbitrary, irrational and completely without basis. The petitioners make out as if the impugned proviso has brought about a change from the existing position. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the ratio of 75:25 between the District office cadre and the Directorate office cadre has been arrived at by looking at the strengths of the two streams. A chart has been appended to the State's affidavit filed on May 25, 2022 which reveals that there are 26 persons in the post of LDA in the Directorate office and 81 persons in the post of LDA in the District offices. The State submits that it is only for the purpose of giving equal opportunity to both streams that the ratio has been fixed. 6. The State goes on to refer to an office memorandum of May 6, 2019 and paragraph 6B thereof. It is evident that the impugned proviso in the 2020 Rules is not a departure from what was indicated in paragraph 6B of the office memorandum of 2019. 7. It is also evident that in the next previous office memorandum of February 17, 2017, paragraph 5 dealt with the appointment to the post of Inspector of Taxes. It is evident that the impugned proviso in the 2020 Rules is not a departure from what was indicated in paragraph 6B of the office memorandum of 2019. 7. It is also evident that in the next previous office memorandum of February 17, 2017, paragraph 5 dealt with the appointment to the post of Inspector of Taxes. Again, the relevant part of paragraph 5B was in pari materia with the relevant part of paragraph 6B of the 2019 office memorandum and in tune with what has been indicated in the impugned proviso in the said Rules of 2020. 8. The State takes the Court back to an office memorandum of December 23, 2010. Paragraph 4(B) contains the same ratio for promotion of 75:25 between the staff from the District offices and the Directorate, respectively. 9. Thus, it is evident that the said Rules of 2020 challenged herein make no departure from the existing practice which has remained in place at least from 2010. At any rate, the ratio for promotion indicated in the Rule is based on the strengths of the two streams and, since the number of persons serving in the comparable post in the Directorate office is, roughly, a third of the number of similar personnel in the District offices, it appears to be perfectly in order. 10. Accordingly, there is no merit in the challenge. In the event the strengths of the two streams alter in the future, it will be open to the State to reconsider the matter. It is also made clear that this order is confined to the limited challenge as contained in the present writ petition and does not deal with other incidental grievances that the petitioners may have. 11. WP (C) No. 233 of 2021 is dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs.