Meghalaya High Court
Smti Runavallerie N Sangma vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 14 April, 2015
Author: Sr Sen
Bench: Sr Sen
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG.
WP(C) No. 67 of 2015
Smti Runavallerie N. Sangma,
Daughter of Shri T.S. Marak,
Resident of Hawakhana,
Tura, West Garo Hills. ::::::: Petitioner
-Vrs-
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
the Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Department of Education,
Shillong
2. Meghalaya Public Service Commission,
Horse Shoe Building,
Shillong.
3. The Secretary,
Meghalaya Public Service Commission,
Horse Shoe Building,
Shillong. ::::::: Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
For the Petitioner : Mr. N. Mozika, Adv.
For the Respondent s : Mr. K. Khan, Addl. Sr. GA
& Mr. B. Khyriem, Adv
Date of hearing : 14.04.2015
Date of Judgment & Order : 14.04.2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"That the petitioner states that by way of this writ petition the petitioner is praying for relaxation of the age limit of 35 years age WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 1 of 7 prescribed by MPSC for recruitment to the 10 posts of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges in Meghalaya as advertised vide advertisement dated 24th March 2015 and subsequently modified by corrigendum dated 27th March 2015.
The background facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed her B.A. (Honours) in Garo and M.A. in Garo from NEHU. Thereafter, she was temporarily appointed as Lecturer in Garo in Tura Government College vide appointment order dated 08.11.2011 under regulation 3(f) of the MPSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1972 and is continuing to serve in the said post till date.
In the year 2012, MPSC had advertised the said 10 posts of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges in Meghalaya vide advertisement dated 21.8.2012. The eligibility criteria inter alia provided that the candidates must also have cleared National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar tests accredited by UGC. UGC does not conduct UGC-NET in Garo subject. Subsequently, since UGC-NET is not conducted in Garo, clarifications were issued by State Government vide letters dated 08.10.2012 and 13.05.2013 that criteria will be that "preference will be given to the candidate with Ph.D. or NET" in place of "qualify for NET or Ph.D." As per the modified criteria, selection process was carried out by MPSC and thereafter vide communication dated 21.05.2013 MPSC recommended the names of 10 candidates (which included the names of the petitioner at serial No. 8) for appointment to the post of lecturer.
While the petitioner, being the duly recommended candidate, was awaiting appointment order from the competent authority, some other candidates whose names were not recommended by MPSC in the said Select List dated 21.05.2013 filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 341 of 2013 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court thereafter vide judgment and order dated 07.05.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 341 of 2013 was pleased to allow the said writ petition by setting aside the select list dated 06.05.2013 and the communication dated 21.05.2013.
Aggrieved by the same the petitioner then filed an appeal being W.A No. 40 of 2014. This Hon'ble Court then vide order dated 18.11.2014 passed in W.A No. 40 of 2014 was pleased to dispose of the said writ appeal by directing the State Government WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 2 of 7 to "undertake and complete the exercise of selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges of Meghalaya within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receiving a copy of this order".
Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.A No. 40 of 2014, the respondent MPSC issued fresh advertisement dated 24th March 2015 inviting applications for recruitment to the various posts including 10 posts of Lecturers in Garo. The closing date for submission of applications is 24.04.2015. The eligibility criteria with regard to the age laid down in the advertisement dated 24.03.2015 and as amended by the corrigendum dated 27.03.2015 is that a SC/ST candidate should be 35 years of age as on 01.01.2015. The date of birth of the petitioner is 21.08.1977 and as such she was 37 year 4 months 10 days of age as on 01.01.2015. As such, the petitioner apprehends that she may be considered to be over-age by the respondent MPSC and her candidature may be rejected on this ground.
The petitioner was duly recommended for appointment as Lecturer in Garo vide communication dated 21.05.2013 pursuant to earlier advertisement dated 21.8.2012. However, she could not be appointed due to the ensuing litigation in WP(C) No. 340 of 2013 and WA No. 40 of 2014. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court in W.A No. 40 of 2014, MPSC has issued fresh advertisement. However, now the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years (as on 01.01.2015). As such the petitioner apprehends that she may be debarred from participating in the selection process, that too for no fault of her own. The petitioner being one of the recommended candidates in the earlier selection process which was subject matter of the said WA No. 40 of 2014, as such the petitioner has a legitimate expectation that she will be allowed to participate in the selection process and she will not be debarred from participating merely on the ground of age limit".
2. Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner Smti Runavallerie N. Sangma, submits that, by virtue of the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in W.A. No. 40 of 2014 the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (For short "MPSC) has issued a fresh WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 3 of 7 advertisement dated 24.03.2015 which is at Annexure-13 Page 63 followed by a corrigendum dated 27.03.2015 which is at Annexure-14 Page 68.
The learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner was earlier selected in the examination conducted by the MPSC in the year 2012. But, since the entire selection process has been set aside and direction has been given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in the above writ appeal, fresh advertisement was done by the MPSC. But, the question remains, now the petitioner who was selected is now over-age. Hence, she is not getting any opportunity to sit for the fresh examination scheduled to be held, for which necessary direction may be given.
2. Also heard Mr. K. Khan, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. B. Khyriem, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3/MPSC who agreed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in earlier selection, the petitioner was selected, but the whole selection process was set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in W.A. No. 40 of 2014. As a result, the Commission as per the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court is going to hold a fresh selection, but the petitioner is over-age now.
3. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in W.A. No. 40 of 2014 wherein, Para 5 and 6, it is clear that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court has made it clear that, 'the State Government shall undertake and complete the exercise of selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges of Meghalaya within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receiving a copy of this order'.
For easy reference, Para 5 and 6 of the said judgment and order is reproduced herein below:
WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 4 of 7"5. The controversy raised in the case is that the writ petitioners cleared their University Grant Commission National Eligibility Test (UGC- NET) in Folk Literature and not in Garo. As per UGC Regulations, for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Government Colleges under Education Department, Government of Meghalaya, it was necessary to pass the UGC-NET Test in Garo. Thereafter, vide letter No. EDN.
18/2005/35, dated 08.10.2012, after the cut-off-date, i.e. the last date for submission of form namely, 21.09.2012, it was informed to the Secretary, Meghalaya Public Service Commission that NET is not required for appointment of Lecturers in Garo Department, and thus, necessary corrections be made in respect of educational qualifications. It should on correction read: "preference will be given to the candidates with Ph.D or NET" in place of "quality for NET or PHD". It was only long after the viva-voce examination of the candidates was over that the Special Officer, Education Department wrote a letter dated 13.05.2013 to the Secretary, Meghalaya Public Service Commission, saying that he learnt from some candidates that NET or Ph.D was insisted as the requisite qualification for appointment. Thus, it was clarified that NET is initially preferable only because the appointments are for filing of the posts in the State scale of Pay. It has been rightly held by learned Single Judge that the selection process begins with the issuance of advertisement and that un-communicated order/official correspondences have no force in the eye of law. As such, no claim can be made on the basis of such official correspondences, and thus, the inter-departmental correspondences dated 08.10.2012 and 13.05.2013 could not have been given effect to unless they were communicated to the persons/candidates who possessed relaxed qualifications. Hence, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned letter dated 06.05.2013 and communicated dated 21.05.2013, whereby the private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in the writ petition had been informed about their selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges under the Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. Thus, apart from the reasons given by learned Single Judge, also in terms of judgment of Nazir Ahmad's case (Supra), the selection is not sustainable. It is also stated that some candidates have approached Hon'ble the Apex Court against the order of learned Single Judge by way of filing of Special Leave Petitions. However, there is a consensus between learned Sr. counsel for parties in submitting that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside with direction to start the selection process afresh in accordance with the rules WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 5 of 7 in vogue as on today. Moreover, learned counsel also submits that on account of litigations, the selection process is held up, therefore, a direction may be given to the State Government to complete the exercise within a time frame.
6. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal while setting aside the impugned judgment in terms of consensus between learned counsel for the parties and direct that the State Government shall undertake and complete the exercise of selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges of Meghalaya within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receiving a copy of this order".
4. I have also perused a fresh advertisement dated 24.03.2015 as well as corrigendum dated 27.03.2015 wherein, it appears that, the age limit has already been fixed at from 18 to 30 years of age with a relaxation of 5(five) years for Schedule Tribe as the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has already attained 37(thirty seven) years, 4(four) months, 10(ten) days. Since the petitioner was already selected earlier, the selection lists was quashed by this court due to the fault of the respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered view that for which, the petitioner should not be held responsible or to suffer.
Therefore, the respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination condoning her over-age as a Special Case. However, this judgment and order will not apply to other normal cases.
5. With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
JUDGE D. Nary WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 WP(C) No. 67 of 2015 Page 7 of 7