Back
2017 Supreme(Megh) 25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Dinesh Maheshwari, S.R. Sen, JJ.
Tariang A. Sangma – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
WP(C) No. 326 of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2017
For the Appellant :N. Syngkon and I. Nongkynrih, Advocates
For the Respondent:K. Khan, Addl. Sr. Government Advocate
Candidates who consciously appeared in the written examination without protest and remained unsuccessful cannot challenge the method of selection as being illegal. The claim for lowering the qualifying marks for reserved categories must be based on valid legal grounds.
Headnote:
Qualifying Marks - Staff Nurse Selection Process - Meghalaya Nursing Service Rules, 2008 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Meghalaya Nursing Service Rules, 2008 - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by candidates who failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the written examination for the post of Staff Nurse. The court found that the petitioners, having consciously appeared in the written examination without protest and having remained unsuccessful, cannot challenge the method of selection as being illegal. The court also held that the claim for lowering the qualifying marks for reserved categories was baseless and misconceived. The court imposed costs of Rs. 500 on each of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, candidates for the post of Staff Nurse, failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks of 50% in the written examination and filed a writ petition challenging the selection process. They argued that the selection process was unfair to reserved category candidates and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the writ petition to be baseless and dismissed it with total costs quantified at Rs. 17,000. The court held that the petitioners, having consciously appeared in the written examination without protest and having remained unsuccessful, cannot challenge the method of selection as being illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, who failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks, could challenge the method of selection as being illegal and unfair to reserved category candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having consciously appeared in the written examination without protest and having remained unsuccessful, cannot challenge the method of selection as being illegal. The court also found the claim for lowering the qualifying marks for reserved categories to be baseless and misconceived.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with total costs quantified at Rs. 17,000. The court imposed costs of Rs. 500 on each of the 34 petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary
The petitioners, 34 in number, who were the candidates in the selection process taken up by the respondents for the post of Staff Nurse and appeared in the written examination held on 07.10.2017 but could not secure the minimum qualifying marks of 50%, have filed this writ petition while stating the grievance that the respondents had fixed the same qualifying marks for all the candidates and that has worked to their prejudice as they belong to the Scheduled Tribe category; and, therefore, mandamus be issued to the respondents to relax the minimum qualifying marks and to allow them to participate in the personal interview.
2. The recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse by the Director of Health Services, Meghalaya, had been a subject of litigation in the past in this Court and the present selection process has, in fact, been undertaken by the respondents after the observations and directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, a brief reference to the background aspects is necessary for effectual determination of the issues raised in this petition.
Background Aspects
3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows:
The Director of Health Services (MI), Shillong, earlier invited applications from the eligible non-bonded candidates for the posts of Staff Nurse by way of an advertisement dated 11.01.2013 that read as under:-
"Advertisement
The Director of Health Services (MI) Meghalaya, Shillong invites application from eligible non-bonded candidates who are bona fide citizens of India for the posts of Staff Nurse.
| 1. No. of Post | - | 180 (tentative) |
| 2. Qualification | - | Possessing General Nursing and Midwifery Certificate/P. G. Diploma In Nursing/B. Sc Nursing from recognized Institution/University & registered under Meghalaya Nursing Council. |
| 3. Additional | - | Knowledge of Khasi,Jaintia & Garo languages |
| 4. Age | - | 18 to 27 yrs. Upper age Limit relaxable by 5 yrs in case of SC/ST Candidates |
| 5. Scale of Pay | - | Rs.11300-280-13260-EB- 360-16500-500-22000/- |
Last date to submit the application form is 15th February, 2013 date of interview to be notified later.
There shall be reservation in favour of candidate belonging to SC/ST in accordance with the reservation Policy of Government.
The application form to be submitted to the Office of the undersigned.
Sd/-
Director of Health Services (MI)
Meghalaya, Shillong."
4. About 811 persons applied in response to the advertisement aforesaid but in the written examination conducted on 10.08.2013, only 15 candidates could secure 50% marks. Before declaration of the result of written examination, the Departmental Recruitment Committee deliberated over the issue of lowering the qualifying marks or giving grace marks to the candidates and the Committee decided that 20 grace marks be given to all the candidates as per the Health Minister's advice.
5. It had appeared in the earlier round of litigation that such proposal for extending grace marks fell in the public domain and certain questions were raised on the rationale and fairness of the procedure so adopted whereupon, the Government proceeded to constitute yet another Committee to enquire into the matter. This Committee, after scrutinising all the necessary papers and tabulation sheets, made certain observations in the meeting dated 07.02.2014 and, thereafter, resolved on 18.02.2014 to recommend re-advertisement and conducting of fresh examination. The resolution of the Committee in that regard, as noticed by this Court in the order dated 24.08.2017 passed in WA No.46 of 2017, could be reproduced as under:-
"The Committee again met on the scheduled date, i.e. 18th February, 2014 at 10:30 am in the office chamber of the DHS(MI), Shillong. After a detailed and threadbare discu
