Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 57 (MEG)

Union of India v. Monaliza Lyngdoh Mawphlang

2022-03-23

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The petition is directed against an order dated February 24, 2020 passed by the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on the respondent's application before such Tribunal. The grievance carried by the respondent to the CAT was that despite a recruitment process initiated by North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (NEIGRIHMS) by an advertisement of July 6, 2017 and such process being successfully concluded and the two petitioners before the Tribunal being selected to be anointed as Associate Professor in general medicine and gynaecology, respectively, the entire process was sought to be arbitrarily undone pursuant to a communication dated September 27, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (NE Section) to the Director of NEIGRIHMS, Shillong. 2. The relevant communication of September 27, 2018, as far as the recruitment process commenced by the advertisement of July 6, 2017 was concerned, had this to say at paragraph 4 thereof: '4. Advertisement dated 06.07.2017 has been quashed. The posts may be re-advertised.' 3. The communication was issued by an under-secretary to the Union and it is alarming that such matters are so irresponsibly handled that not a line of reason is expended to justify why a process that had been initiated more than a year back was required to be set at naught after it had been completed and the appropriate personnel selected in course thereof. In a rare case, it is possible that there is some fundamental mistake made in the advertisement as to the qualifications or such as would render the process contrary to the object of the exercise. There is no doubt that the decision to quash the advertisement of July 6, 2017 may have been on as flimsy a ground as a 't' therein not being crossed or an 'i' not dotted. Indeed, in the absence of reasons, the reasonableness of the decision to quash the advertisement cannot be assessed. 4. There is no doubt that the decision to quash the advertisement of July 6, 2017 may have been on as flimsy a ground as a 't' therein not being crossed or an 'i' not dotted. Indeed, in the absence of reasons, the reasonableness of the decision to quash the advertisement cannot be assessed. 4. Though the principle enunciated at paragraph 8 of the judgment reported at (1978) 1 SCC 405 (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner) has now been diluted, when a decision is made which entails such serious consequence as in the present case to undo a right that may have vested in the respondents herein, a strong and valid reason must be indicated and such reason ought to have existed at the time the decision was taken and ought to be reflected in the decision-making process rather than be a product of the fertile mind of some professional at a later stage. 5. It is imperative that reasons be furnished in such regard, if only for the appropriate forum to assess whether a minor matter could have been glossed over or the mistake or error went to the root of the matter to completely defeat the purpose of the process. 6. At any rate, there does not appear to be any accountability in government actions. If it was the carelessness of any minion which resulted in such a colossal mistake as would require the entire process to be undone after its completion and a year after the process commenced, the relevant person ought to have been charged and the costs and consequences of the mistake at least attempted to be realised. But it may not be rational to expect such accountability in the administrative functioning that is prevalent in this country. 7. It is in the same vein that the present proceedings have been conducted on behalf of the petitioner-organisation. Since there was nothing to justify the decision reflected at paragraph 4 of the relevant communication, the Tribunal could not have held otherwise than what is reflected at paragraph 9 of the order impugned dated February 24, 2020: '9. After having considered the above aspects in entire perspective we found that the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.07.2017, after having completed the process is unjustified, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice. After having considered the above aspects in entire perspective we found that the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.07.2017, after having completed the process is unjustified, bad in law and against the principle of natural justice. This is violating the principle of the legitimate expectations of the participated candidates. The respondent authorities have not put forward justified ground to cancel this recruitment process particularly when there is no specific objection from any quarter. Keeping in view of this, the Notification No. 12012/16/2018-NE dated 27.09.2018 by which, the Ministry has quashed the advertisement dated 06.07.2017 in regard to the applicants and proposed to re-advertised the posts, is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the recruitment already completed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. If these two applicants are found qualified, their appointment letter may be issued forthwith.' 8. It ought to have occurred to the petitioning organisation that there was no ground to defend its indefensible action of quashing a process after it had been completed, particularly, when no reason for undoing the same had been furnished in the first place. The present petition was eminently avoidable. Again, it does not cost a government servant any money to indulge in fancy litigation or waste the Court's time without there being any basis therefor. The entire object of the exercise on the part of such irresponsible personnel is to pass the buck to the Court and the general refrain thereafter is invariably that despite their best effort they cannot go against the authority of the Court. 9. Indeed, there appears to be much more than meets the eye in this matter, including, possibly the apathy towards the candidates who succeeded in the process. 10. Since no ground has been made out to justify the cancellation or quashing of the process of recruitment pertaining to the posts for which the respondents were selected and relevant considerations weighed with the Tribunal in deciding the matter, the decision-making process, which is the only object of scrutiny in the limited scope of judicial review available at this stage, does not appear to be flawed. The decision rendered is the logical consequence in the backdrop of the facts presented to the Tribunal and does not shock the conscience of this Court for it to be minded to interfere therewith. 11. WP (C) No. 50 of 2022 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/- to be paid in equal share to the two respondents. The Union and NEIGRIHMS would do well to extract the costs from the pockets of the deviant employee or employees at whose behest the entire charade has been enacted.