The main legal point established in the judgment is that a candidate who submits himself to the process of selection and awaits the result without raising any objections cannot later challenge the selection process. The judgment also emphasizes the limited interference by the Court in the selection made by expert bodies like the MPSC.

B. Lamare, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.K. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. B. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the State Respondents and Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7.

2. These two appeals are taken up together as the same have been preferred against the order dated 10.08.99 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule 36 (SH) 1998.

3. The brief facts of the case is that by an advertisement dated 06.01.1997, the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (in short MPSC) invited applications for the posts of Motor vehicle Inspectors, the last date for receipt of applications was fixed on 18.02.1997. Hie qualification prescribed for the posts is as follows:

QUALIFICATION:

(i) Matriculation with a Diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) from a recognized Institute.

(ii) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State/Board of Technical Education (3 years course).

(iii) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passengers motor vehicles filled with petrol and diesel engine.

(iv) Must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles and valid driving licence for all 3(three) categories of vehicles.

Sd/- Secretary,

Meghalaya Public Service Commission,

Shillong.

In response to the said advertisement, the Appellants in these writ appeals and the Respondent No. 7 also applied for the post. The interview was duly conducted by the MPSC on 22, 23 and 24th July, 1997. On the basis of the interview, the two Appellants herein and the Respondent Nos. 9 to 12 in the writ petition were selected. The name of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge appeared at Serial No. 1 of the select list. On the basis of the said recommendation of the MPSC, the Appellant Shri Ram hinge was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector by order dated 20.08.1997 and he joined the post on 22.08.1997.

4. After the said recommendation of the MPSC and the appointment of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge to the post of MVI, the Respondent No. 7 made a complaint to the Commissioner of Transport, Meghalaya and on the basis of the complaint an enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Transport and the Commissioner found that there was no illegality in the selection of the Appellant Shri Ram Hinge.

5. Failing to get select in the selection made by the MPSC and also as the report of the Commissioner of Transport is not in his favour, the Respondent No. 7 approached this Court in Civil Rule 36 (SH) 1998 assailing the selection of both the Appellants herein and also other selected candidates and also prayed for quashing of the select list prepared by the MPSC.

6. On filing of the said Civil Rule by the Respondent No. 7 as the writ Petitioner, this Court, by interim order dated 27.04.1998 directed that pending disposal of this rule, the State Respondents are directed not to make further appointment. However, the appointment of the Appellant who is Respondent No. 7 in the Civil Rule was not stayed by this Court. The said Civil Rule was however, finally decided by the impugned order dated 10.08.99 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge, has directed the State Govt, to conduct a proper enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned Respondents No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and also the District Transport Officer from whose Office the driving licence had been issued in favour of the respective Respondents, and if the driving licences are found not in accordance with law, their licences may be cancelled. In the event of the cancellation of the driving licences the recommendation along with the findings will be made over to the MPSC for cancellation of the result of the selection and in that event the State will be free to hold