Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Ms. Kime Bobby thereafter submitted a representation dated 28.08.2019 to the respondents, questioning the appointment of Shri Phobing Gyati, on the ground that he did not have the eligibility criteria for being considered and appointed to the post of System Analyst. Ms. Kime Bobby also prayed that she should be considered for appointment to the said post as she was the next in line in the select list. Consequent upon the representation submitted by Ms. Kime Bobby, the respondent authorities issued a Show-Cause notice dated 26.11.2019 to Shri Phobing Gyati, asking him as to why his appointment should not be cancelled for not having the requisite educational qualification at the time of selection to the post of System Analyst. Shri Phobing Gyati replied to the show-cause notice and after examining the same, the respondents found the reply to be unsatisfactory. Shri Phobing Gyati was thereafter terminated from the post of System Analyst on the ground that he was not eligible to apply for the post of System Analyst on the last day of submission of applications, as prescribed in the Advertisement dated 08.02.2018.

6. That in reply to the representation made by Ms. Kime Bobby for appointment to the post of System Analyst in place of Shri Phobing Gyati, the respondents had written a letter dated 22.11.2019 to Ms. Kime Bobby, wherein it was stated that show cause notice had been Page No.# 5/15 issued to Shri. Phobing Gyati and that her prayer for appointing her to the post of System Analyst would be considered after conclusion of the process initiated regarding appointment of Shri. Phobing Gyati. Subsequent to the termination of Shri. Phobing Gyati, the Registrar (Administration)-cum-In/charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court issued a letter dated 01.06.2020 to Ms. Kime Bobby, stating that her prayer for appointment as System Analyst was "considered and rejected". The letter further states that a fresh process would be initiated for filling up the said post. No further explanation was given.

8. Mr. M. Pertin, the learned counsel for Shri Phobing Gyati submits that there was no suppression of the fact that Shri Phobing Gyati did not have the requisite educational qualification at the time he applied for the post and the same was also known to the respondents. However, as Shri Phobing Gyati has been allowed to take part in the selection process and as Shri Phobing Gyati had worked for sometime in the post of System Analyst, he should be allowed to continue in the post of System Analyst, by invoking the equity jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard he has relied upon the case of Babita Kalita vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2017 (3) GLT 394, which was disposed off by a Division Bench of this Court. He also submits that the Apex Court in the case of Sukh Bilash Thakur Page No.# 6/15 vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 258, had interfered with the order of reversion though the appellant therein did not have the educational qualification for appointment to the feeder post, as the appellant had not secured the appointment by fraudulent methods or by suppressing facts. He submits that as Shri Phobing Gyati has not suppressed the fact that he did not have the educational qualification as per the advertisement, for appointment to the post of System Analyst at the time of submitting his application, this Court should also allow Shri Phobing Gyati to continue in his post of System Analyst, as Shri Phobing Gyati had in the meantime secured the educational qualification required for the post of System Analyst.

10. Mr. P.D Nair submits that as Shri Phobing Gyati was ineligible to be considered and selected, his appointment to the post of System Analyst was illegal and void. He submits that the selection process for filling up the post of System Analyst could not be said to be completed as the vacancy had been illegally filled up. The appointment of Shri Phobing Gyati being void, it could not be said that a future vacancy arose in respect of the said post, on termination of the void appointment of Shri Phobing Gyati. The same did not create a subsequent vacancy, as the vacancy was a subsisting vacancy. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for Smt. Kime Bobby has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in