Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 283 (MEG)

Abu Mashud v. State of Meghalaya

2022-10-25

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The brief facts necessary to be noted herein are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 29.10.2018, issued by the respondents for conduct of the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) on 31.01.2019, the writ petitioners along with others had appeared for the said exam in Dadenggre Centre. The results for the said examination for all the districts were declared except for Dadenggre Centre, which was withheld due to the leakage of question papers in that centre. Thereafter, vide notice dated 29.11.2020, it was informed that the MTET, 2019 Examination with regard to Dadenggre Centre would be re-conducted. The writ petitioners thereafter sat for the aforesaid examination which was held on 15.12.2020 and were declared successful vide results which was declared on 29.04.2021. The State respondents then for the entire State vide notice dated 02.09.2021, announced the selection for the second batch of MTET, which was held on 09.10.2021 for all the 15 Centres of the State. The result for the second batch i.e., MTET, 2021 was declared on 08.12.2021, for all the 15 centres including Dadenggre, wherein 202 candidates from Dadenggre Sub-Division were declared passed. 2. It appears that the grievance of the writ petitioners stems from the fact that the second batch of MTET 2021, were also sought to be included by the respondents for selection, inasmuch as, by a notice dated 13.12.2021, the last date for application for the post of Assistant Teachers under Dadenggre Sub-Division was extended from 10.12.2021 to 03.01.2022, which was then subsequently by another letter dated 06.01.2022 extended for another 15 days till 18.01.2022. Thereafter, another extension was given vide letter 19.01.2022, extending the last date for submission of applications to 31.01.2022. The petitioners' stand is that the subsequent notices and even the last advertisement notice dated 22.01.2022, re-advertising the same post of 159 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers in Dadenggre Sub-division, was only to suit and accommodate the second batch i.e., MTET, 2021 candidates illegally. Another grievance that has been put up, is with a notice dated 24.01.2022, wherein the MTET 2021, candidates were exempted from attaching the MTET certificate at the time of application, but allowed to produce the same only at the time of interview, which the writ petitioners allege, has altered the criteria prescribed for selection. 3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. 3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the competent authority of the State had made a conscious decision to conduct the selection as it is apparent from the letter dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and letter dated 26.11.2021 (Annexure-R/1 to State affidavit), but the subsequent actions allowing the MTET 2021 batch to be clubbed together is untenable. He further submits that even if the above clubbing is permissible, the first extension vide letter dated 13.12.2021, issued by the Director (respondent No. 3), extending the date of submission of applications and allowing the MTET 2021 batch to take part in the selection process is without jurisdiction as the Director (respondent No. 3) does not have jurisdiction to the same. Hence, he contends that the second advertisement dated 18.12.2021 (Annexure-17) on this ground itself is bad in law. 4. Learned Senior counsel maintains that the entire sequence of extensions is vitiated, inasmuch as, clubbing together of two batches of MTET is not permissible, as for the other centres in the State, selection was done separately. Learned Senior counsel submits that the third and fourth advertisement and relaxation of criteria is without authority and jurisdiction, and has in effect changed the rules of the game. However, he concedes that up to the second advertisement dated 18.12.2021, the said selection may be allowed in the interest of justice, fairness and equity. In support of his contentions leaned Senior counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions. i) Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Another (2007) 10 SCC 260 (Para 21) ii) Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR (2008) SC 1657 (Para 3) iii) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) v. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association and Others (2009) 14 SCC 517 (Para 33) iv) Mutha Associates and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2013) 14 SCC 304 (Para 42 & 43) v) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others (2004) 2 SCC 65 (Para 25 & 26) vi) Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others (2013) 1 SCC 501 (Para 18). 5. On behalf of the State respondents, it has been strenuously argued by Mr. 5. On behalf of the State respondents, it has been strenuously argued by Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG, that the petitioners have no legal right to prohibit the extension of the recruitment process, and that there must be a judicially enforceable right, before one suffering a legal grievance can seek for a mandamus. It is submitted that as per the Right to Education Act, 2009, possession of minimum qualifications laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, for being eligible for appointment as a teacher, is a must. However, possession of such minimum qualifications, he submits, does not create any right in favour of a candidate, other than a right to be considered for selection. In this respect, it is submitted, the petitioners right to be considered is still guaranteed and the extension of the recruitment process, by the Government to include a larger pool of eligible persons for selection is in no way violative of any legal right of the petitioners. 6. It has also been contended that, the total vacancies of 159 posts, outnumber the MTET 2019 qualified candidates, who were only 115 in number, and it would be contrary to public interest, to first appoint these 115 candidates to the said vacancies, and only then move on to fill the balance vacancies. It is further submitted that, if the contention of the petitioners is accepted, merit would be compromised in the selection process, as precedence would be given to persons who became eligible prior in time, irrespective of their merit position. The learned AG has submitted that the prayer of the petitioners to proceed and conclude the interview only with the MTET 2019 batch, that is, the writ petitioner and their colleagues is unsustainable in law. In support of his arguments, learned AG has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and others reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 . ii) Jharkhand Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 178 . iii) Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779 . 7. ii) Jharkhand Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anr. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 178 . iii) Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779 . 7. It has been further submitted that, the scope of judicial review, is limited, inasmuch as, the only right that the petitioners possess is for consideration for appointment, and that the State Government has exercised its discretion to extend the recruitment process, to include 2021 MTET candidates on good reasons. The power to extend the cut-off date, it is argued, is available with the Government and is an administrative action, and in the present case, the extension has only increased the pool of eligible candidates and therefore, it cannot be said that the said extension is arbitrary or illegal. The learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. N. Subbarayudu & others reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702 , in support of his arguments. 8. The learned AG has also submitted that, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties namely the successful candidates of MTET 2021, as these candidates will be directly affected, in case a decision is passed for scrapping the extension. He submits that the Principles of Natural Justice, demand that these successful candidates should be made party in the present case. These principles he contends, has been noted in the following 2 decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely; i) Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC 204 . ii) State of Assam v. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408 . 9. With regard to changing the rules of the game, after commencement of process, as alleged by the petitioner, the learned AG submits that, the extension of dates for application is not a change in the rules of the game, and may have led to a situation where if the number of candidates who applied before the cut-off date are insufficient, the same cannot be extended. It is also contended that the permission granted allowing the MTET 2021 candidates to produce their MTET certificates, at the stage of interview, does not amount to altering the rules of the game, but was done to increase the number of applicants. It is also contended that the permission granted allowing the MTET 2021 candidates to produce their MTET certificates, at the stage of interview, does not amount to altering the rules of the game, but was done to increase the number of applicants. Furthermore, it is submitted, as on the date of fresh advertisement dated 15.12.2021, all persons who met the eligibility criteria were entitled to be considered, which would obviously include all MTET 2019 and MTET 2021. The requirement of law, he submits is that, as on the date of advertisement, the persons applying must be eligible to be appointed and that in the present case, as on 15.12.2021, the writ petitioner and the MTET 2021 candidates, were eligible. It has been further argued, that the petition is also unsustainable on merits, as orders of advertisement are purely policy matters forming part of administrative action and discretion. He therefore submits that, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. L.R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 who has appeared in MTET 2021 examinations and is an applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher in Assamese medium, has endorsed and supported the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. 11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. The controversy with regard to the extension of the dates for application to the post of Assistant Teachers in Dadenggre Sub-Division, has arisen only due to the fact that, the first round of examinations for MTET qualification held in January, 2019, for Dadenggre were nullified due to the leakage of papers, whereas, for all other 14 centres in the State results were declared and selections were conducted. Thereafter, the MTET test was duly re-conducted on 15.12.2020, for MTET 2019, for which the petitioners qualified. Though, the exercise in conducting the said exams was completed, no selection was held, as even as on 18.08.2021, as reflected by a communication so dated, the vacancy position has been sought for by the respondent No. 2, from the respondent No. 4, along with an action plan for recruitment including time lines. In the meanwhile, it appears vide an advertisement dated 02.09.2021, examinations for MTET 2021, for the entire State was issued and the said examination was held on 09.10.2021, and results were declared on 08.12.2021, for all centres. 12. In the meanwhile, it appears vide an advertisement dated 02.09.2021, examinations for MTET 2021, for the entire State was issued and the said examination was held on 09.10.2021, and results were declared on 08.12.2021, for all centres. 12. The grievance of the petitioners stems from the fact that, prior to the declaration of results of MTET 2021 on 08.12.2021, an advertisement had been floated on 02.12.2021, for recruitment which in the event, had been proceeded with, would may be, have confined the eligible candidates to only those candidates of the MTET 2019 batch, notwithstanding the fact, that last date for receipt of the applications was on 10.12.2021, two days after the declaration of the results of MTET 2021. It is however, relevant to note, at this stage itself that, the advertisement only stipulated that the candidates should compulsorily possess an MTET passed certificate, without indicating the year. 13. The sequence of events thereafter is that, the last date for submission of applications i.e., 10.12.2021, was extended to 03.01.2022, on 13.12.2021 by the respondents and by a Corrigendum dated 15.12.2021, the total number of vacancies were shown as 159 for Dadenggre Sub-Division. Advertisement was then issued on 18.12.2021, wherein, the MTET 2021 qualified candidates were also invited to apply. This was followed by another extension issued by advertisement dated 06.01.2022, whereby the date of receipt of applications were again extended till 18.01.2022, and lastly, by advertisement dated 22.01.2022, the period was then again extended till 31.01.2022. The matter being situated thus, this Court is only to examine as to whether, the repeated extension of the dates of application and inclusion of the MTET 2021, qualified candidates has vitiated the principles of fairness and transparency in a public selection process. 14. As observed earlier, this situation arose only due to the fact that, the MTET test for 2019 had to be re-conducted, which more or less, blurred the time line between the MTET 2019 batch and MTET 2021 batch. It is to be noted that, the selection process for Dadenggre Sub-Division commenced with the advertisement dated 02.12.2021, with the last date of submission of applications being 10.12.2021. The advertisement dated 02.12.2021, did not limit the selection to only the MTET 2019 batch, but only stipulated that, candidates should be in possession of an MTET passed certificate. It is to be noted that, the selection process for Dadenggre Sub-Division commenced with the advertisement dated 02.12.2021, with the last date of submission of applications being 10.12.2021. The advertisement dated 02.12.2021, did not limit the selection to only the MTET 2019 batch, but only stipulated that, candidates should be in possession of an MTET passed certificate. The results for MTET 2021, were declared on 08.12.2021, which necessarily means that on 10.12.2021, the last date fixed for receipt of applications, many more candidates in Dadenggre Sub-Division had become eligible to be selected for the said advertised posts. Another factor that, merits attention is that, after the re-conduct of the MTET 2019 examination, 115 candidates in the Sub-Division were declared successful, whereas, they were 159 vacancies to be filled. To limit, the selection to only the MTET 2019 batch, therefore, would not have sufficed to fill up the said vacancies. Reasons for the delay in the selection process have also been laid out in the affidavit of the respondents, which are attributed to the conduct of bye elections to the Assembly Constituency under Dadenggre Sub-Division, as also the District Council Elections that followed which entailed the suspension of the process recruitment due to the Model Code of Conduct. 15. The stand of the writ petitioners that, the relief may be moulded by holding the selection process only for the applicants who had applied for the post, in pursuance to the first advertisement dated 02.12.2021, read with Corrigendum dated 15.12.2021, and second advertisement dated 08.12.2021, is also not tenable, inasmuch as, even by the advertisement dated 18.12.2021, the MTET 2021 candidates, have been invited to take part in the selection, on the basis of the letter No. DSEL/EL/GA/Misc/10/2020/Pt-11 dated 13.12.2021. The subsequent extensions which have been impugned i.e., dated 06.01.2022 and 22.01.2022, both carry the same refrain, that is, they refer to the same letter, by which the initial extension was granted. 16. Looking into the larger picture, the main contention of the writ petitioners that, the eligible candidates of MTET 2019 and MTET 2021, cannot be clubbed together in a single selection process is unsustainable. Firstly, as per the materials on record, the vacancy position in Dadenggre Sub-Division, after the Corrigendum stood at 159, whereas, only 115 candidates were available from the MTET 2019 batch. Firstly, as per the materials on record, the vacancy position in Dadenggre Sub-Division, after the Corrigendum stood at 159, whereas, only 115 candidates were available from the MTET 2019 batch. It stands to reason that, in such a selection, merit would have to be given a go bye, when in fact, it should be the primary consideration. The extension therefore to include the MTET 2021 batch, would definitely ensure that a larger pool of eligible candidates would be available for selection, which would in turn, ensure that the quality of the teachers would be the best available. 17. The only right that the petitioners seek to enforce in the instant case, is one of legitimate expectation, but however, the only right that has accrued in favour of the petitioners upon clearing the MTET, is for consideration for selection. Apart from the challenge to the extensions, no case has been made out to show that the petitioners have been discriminated against, or have been unfairly treated in any manner. The right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment is intact, but this right does not extend to insist, that the selection be confined only to the MTET 2019 batch. If the decision of the respondents to extend the cut-off date was blatantly illegal, which would have led to an anomalous situation, the same would surely warrant interference by the Courts, but in the instant case, on close examination, it is seen that, the same has been made on valid considerations. 18. The scope of judicial review, in respect of decisions taken by the Government in recruitment matters is also limited. The decision to extend the cut-off date is an executive decision, in the exercise of necessity and exigencies, while taking into account all attendant factors, that have an impact and bearing on the selection process. The decision-making process, in extending the cut-off date, nowhere reflecting that the same was on other considerations, therefore, cannot be interfered with in the present case. 19. The allegations that the rules of the game have been changed, also does not have any substance, inasmuch as, it has only provided that, the qualified candidates may present the MTET certificate, at the time of interview. 19. The allegations that the rules of the game have been changed, also does not have any substance, inasmuch as, it has only provided that, the qualified candidates may present the MTET certificate, at the time of interview. Without alluding to the decisions placed by the respective counsels, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove and, in the facts, and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the recruitment process by this Court, in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.