Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (KOHIMA BENCH)
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.
Lichumbeni Kikon and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Nagaland Public Service Commission and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 163 (K) of 2013
Decided On : 20-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R. Iralu, Sr. Advocate and K.L. Solo, Advocate
For the Respondents:V. Suokhrie, GA, C.T. Jamir, Sr. Advocate, I. Longjem and Wati Jamir
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Nagaland Public Service Commission (State Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 – Quashing of NPSC's – Power of high court to issue certain writs – Present dispute relates to inter-se-seniority in between appointees, who were appointed pursuant to interview conducted under advertisement – Held, Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for interest of justice, can mould relief and, therefore, impugned seniority list as well as other seniority lists are interfered with only with regard to petitioners and private respondent – Court is of considered opinion that direction to NPSC to prepare a composite merit list of petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 14 will be redundant as marks obtained by them have become part of this judgment – Accordingly, State respondents are directed to fix inter-se-seniority of petitioners and respondents on basis of marks obtained by petitioners and three private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 considering result to be out of one selection process in light of directions and observations made in this writ petition – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Irak, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 14, Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Nagaland Public Service Commission, and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. An advertisement, being advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.02.2005, was published by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (in short, "NPSC"), amongst others, for recruitment to 6 (six) posts of Lecturers in English, 8 (eight) posts of Lecturers in Science and 3 (three) posts of Lecturers in Social Science, which are Class-I Gazetted posts, to be appointed in State Council of Educational Research and Training (in short, "SCERT"). The present dispute relates to inter-se-seniority in between the appointees, who were appointed pursuant to the interview conducted under advertisement No. 5/2004-05. Dates for holding the interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, Science and Social Science was notified by the NPSC vide notification dated 13.5.2005, on 21.6.2005, 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively Petitioner No. 6, though eligible under the terms of the advertisement, was not issued call letter and accordingly, she along with some others, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP (C) No. 160(K)/2005. By an order dated 20.6.2005, this Court directed that oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English and Education in terms of the advertisement dated 17.02.2005, shall not be processed by the NFSC without permission of the Court.
3. In view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 20.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, scheduled on 21.6.2005, was not held. On 23.06.2005, NPSC intimated the petitioner No. 6 that because of clerical mistake, her application for the post of Lecturer in English was rejected, though she was eligible and accordingly, she was called upon to appear before the Interview Board and a call letter was also issued to her with a specific roll number indicating that the date of interview would be notified later on. In view of the aforesaid development, the petitioner No. 6 herein, filed a miscellaneous application, which was registered as CMC No. 148(K)/2005, to allow her to withdraw from the aforesaid writ petition, in which she was the petitioner No. 3. This Court, by an order dated 26.08.2005 passed in the aforesaid CMC No. 148(K)/2005, allowed the prayer of the present petitioner No. 6 and struck off her name from the array of parties.
4. Subsequently, on 16.09.2005, call letters were issued by the NPSC fixing the date of interview for the posts of Lecturers in English on 01.10.2005. In the meantime, interview for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science had taken place, as notified earlier vide notification dated 13.05.2005, on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively. On 29.06.2005, a notification was issued by the NPSC, selecting, amongst others, 8 (eight) Lecturers in Science and 3 (three) Lecturers in Social Science. On the very date of interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, i.e., on 01.10.2005, a notification was issued selecting and recommending 6 (six) candidates, as indicated therein, for appointment. These 6 (six) persons recommended for appointment as Lecturers in English are the writ petitioners. On 19.04.2006, on the recommendation of the NPSC, the writ petitioners as well as the private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 were appointed as Lecturers in their respective Branches in District Institute of Education & Training (in short, "DIET") under SCERT. In the said appointment order, the Lecturers in English had been placed at serial Nos. 12 to 17, Lecturers in Science at serial Nos. 1 to 8 and Lecturers in Social Science at serial Nos. 9 to 11.
5. Making a grievance that after their ap
