Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Megh) 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Shri. Nikiru War & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 75, 76 of 2015
Decided On : 19-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.H. Hazarika, GA., Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Adv.

Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Qualification and experience - Posts of Sericulture Demonstrator - Doctrine of estoppels - Principle of estoppel as applicable to Petitioners therein, it is seen that the Apex Court has held that petitioners who had participated in the selection are not estopped from challenging the selection in facts of the present case, since selection criteria which was followed was never notified till the declaration of final result, whereas in this instant case, the revised selection criteria was known to the Petitioners herein even before they had filed their application forms and as such, the above judgment would not help the Petitioners herein as far as application of the principle of estoppel is concerned

Headnote:
Post of Sericulture Demonstrator - Educational qualification - Certificate Course in Sericulture - District Selection Committee – Seeking direction to be issued upon Respondents to appoint them to post of Sericulture Demonstrator and also to set aside and quash appointment of private Respondents herein who are said to be occupying the said posts in an officiating capacity - District Selection Committee (DSC) published final result and 12(twelve) candidates who have qualified have been recommended for appointment by Respondent No. 3 vide letter - Petitioners seeking intervention in matter with a request to issue the appointment order in their favour, however, till date no appointment order was issued to them in terms of recommendation - However, it is learnt that some persons have been appointed on an officiating and temporary basis, thus depriving Petitioners of their rightful entitlement.
Being aggrieved by the action of the official Respondent
Finding of the Court: On perusal of the said corrigendum it is also noticed that wide publicity has been given to the same. There is nothing to prevent Petitioners to assail said corrigendum before said advertisement relevant time - An examination was held by the HPSC and 40. candidates passed the said examination with the required minimum 45 per cent marks. Their names were published in the Government Gazette. The State Government, the appointing authority, made seven appointments out of the said list in the order of merit. Respondents, who ranked 8, 9 and 13 respectively in that list, did not get an appointment although there were vacancies - The reason for not appointing the respondents was that in view of State Government, which was incidentally identical to that of High Court, candidates getting less than 55 per cent marks in the examination should not be appointed as Subordinate Judges in the interest of maintaining high standards of competence in judicial service - Respondents 1 to 3 challenged this decision on the ground that State Government was not entitled to pick and choose only seven out of them for appointment, because to do so tantamounted to prescribing a standard which was not contemplated
Result: Writ petitions stand disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

1. These two sets of petition being identical and pertaining to the same subject matter, it is deemed expedient and convenient to take them up together and to dispose the same vide this common judgment and order.

2. Vide advertisement No DSC.3/ADVT/2012/14 dated Jowai, the 1st November, 2012, the Office of the Respondent No. 4 has issued an advertisement for recruitment to various posts in different State Government offices/departments in West Jaintia Hills District, which posts includes 6(six) posts of Sericulture Demonstrator lying vacant in the office of the Respondent No. 3.

3. In the said advertisement dated 01.11.2012, for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator, the minimum educational qualification and other qualifications prescribed is Matriculate with 15th Months’ Certificate Course in Sericulture.

4. While the said advertisement dated 01.11.2012 was still subsisting, Respondent No. 4 issued a Corrigendum to the same vide Office Corrigendum No. DSC.3/ADVT/2012/18 dated Jowai the 28th November 2012 to the extent that the original advertisement was modified to increase the number of posts of Sericulture Demonstrator from 6 to 10 with minimum qualification of 15(fifteen) months’ course at Sericulture Training Institute Ummulong with two years’ experience.

5. The Petitioners herein in response to the said advertisement applied for the said post of Sericulture Demonstrator even though their qualification is matriculation having also completed the 15(fifteen) months’ course training in Sericulture Training Institute Ummulong, West Jaintia Hills District. The Petitioners were then allowed to appear in the aptitude written test which was held on 10.01.2014 and having cleared the same, they were called to appear in the personal interview held on 07.07.2017.

6. The District Selection Committee (DSC) published the final result on 21.07.2014 and 12(twelve) candidates who have qualified have been recommended for appointment by Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 28.07.2017. In the said result and recommendation, the name of Petitioner Shri Nikiru War figured at Sl. No. 2, that of Petitioner Smti Lasankiru Manners at Sl. No. 7, Petitioner Smti Meskhem (Meskhera) Dkhar at Sl. No. 10 and Petitioner Smti Rafflecia Challam at Sl. No. 11.

7. The Petitioners on 20.08.2014 submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2 seeking intervention in the matter with a request to issue the appointment order in their favour, however, till date no appointment order was issued to them in terms of the recommendation dated 28.07.2014. However, it is learnt that some persons have been appointed on an officiating and temporary basis, thus depriving the Petitioners of their rightful entitlement.

8. Being aggrieved by the action of the official Respondents, the Petitioners have preferred these two writ petitions with similar prayer before this Court for a direction to be issued upon the Respondents to appoint them to the post of Sericulture Demonstrator and also to set aside and quash the appointment of the private Respondents herein who are said to be occupying the said posts in an officiating capacity.

9. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that this matter has come before this Court the second time around, the first being the disposal of the same vide order dated 04.11.2016 whereby, this Court has dismissed the prayer of the Petitioners, but has however also directed that Respondent No. 11 to 16 therein may be removed from service since they are adhoc appointees.

10. The Petitioner herein being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 04.11.2016 had preferred an intra-Court appeal being W.A No. 90/2016 and the Appellate Court vide order dated 20.06.2017 had disposed of the appeal inter alia, by remanding the matter for reconsideration by this Court. The order as regard the Respondent No. 11 to 16 have however not been disturbed by the Appellate Court and the appointment of Respondent No. 5 to 10 on the post of Ser