Smti. Iakmenlang Kharkongor vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 485 Meg

Serial No. 34
Regular List
                             HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                   AT SHILLONG

   WP(C) No. 130 of 2021                              Date of Decision: 29.08.2022


   Smti. Iakmenlang Kharkongor                Vs.      State of Meghalaya & Ors.

   Coram:
                           Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


   Appearance:

   For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :          Ms. C.B. Sawian, Adv.

   For the Respondent(s)              :       Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA(For R 1-3) Mr. E. Nongbri, Adv. (For R 4 & 5).

None for R 6.

   i)         Whether approved for reporting in                  Yes/No
              Law journals etc.:

   ii)        Whether approved for publication
              in press:                                          Yes/No

                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner an Assistant

Teacher at Diengkynthong Lower Primary School, by way of this instant

writ petition is assailing the appointment of the respondent No. 6 to a

sanctioned post, by the respondents No. 4 and 5, which she alleges was

facilitated in an illegal manner by manipulation and by showing undue

favour.

2. The school in question, namely Diengkynthong Lower Primary

School, an aided school receiving grants from the State, had issued an

advertisement on 07.05.2019, with regard to the post of Assistant Teacher

in the said school to which the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and other

applicants had applied for. Subsequently, it appears a second

advertisement was issued in supersession to the earlier one, on

16.01.2020, to which the petitioner including 56 other applicants took

part in the written test held pursuant thereto. The petitioner, respondent

No. 6, and 3 other candidates were then shortlisted for personal interview

which was held on 25.02.2020, and in the said interview, the respondent

No. 6, was placed in the first position and the petitioner second.

3. The main challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 6 by

the petitioner is on the ground that the appointment was given to the

respondent No. 6, inspite of the said respondent being overaged, and also

not qualified as per the MTET norms.

4. Ms. C.B. Sawian, learned counsel for the petitioner on the

grounds of challenge, has taken this Court to the record of proceedings

before the Managing Committee annexed to the writ petition, to illustrate

the fact of favouritism and the pre-decided stand of the respondent

Managing Committee to appoint the respondent No. 6 at all costs. In this

regard, learned counsel has firstly placed an extract of a Managing

Committee resolution dated 26.07.2018, wherein it was unanimously

decided to appoint the respondent No. 6 in place of one Smti. Thrinsibon

Syiemlieh, on her retirement, which was followed by another resolution

dated 03.04.2020, on the same vein. Attention has also been drawn to the

first advertisement which was subsequently withdrawn, and to the second

advertisement to which selection was held. Learned counsel submits that

after the said selection, the proposal for appointment of respondent No.

6, was not accepted by the State respondents, as she was overaged, which

was however, persisted by the respondent Managing Committee by

presenting an incorrect fact that the selection was on the basis of the first

advertisement. On this incorrect representation of facts, it is submitted

the impugned order appointment dated 26.02.2021, was issued by the

State respondents with the direction that the respondent No. 6, was to

clear the MTET eligibility test within 2 years.

5. Learned counsel has submitted that there was no selection

pursuant to the first advertisement, and the said selection was conducted

only after the second advertisement, wherein the petitioner was placed

second in the select list. She strongly contends that, the respondent No.

6's appointment inspite of being overaged, and not qualified was

manipulated and made possible by the illegal acts of the respondent

Managing Committee. As such, she prays that the impugned appointment

be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner be given due consideration

for appointment to the said post.

6. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. I. Lyngwa,

learned GA for the State respondents submits that though objection had

been raised on the proposal for appointment of respondent No. 6, on

account of being overaged, the respondent No. 5 clarified that the

recommended candidate was well within the permitted age, at the time of

the first advertisement which was published on 07.05.2019, which led to

the issuance of the impugned appointment order. He also fairly submits

that, only teachers who have qualified the MTET eligibility test are

eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers, and the respondent No. 6

at the time of appointment did not possess the same. He prays that the

Court may pass appropriate orders, as the appointment appeared to be

irregular.

7. Mr. E. Nongbri, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents

No. 4 and 5 does not dispute the fact that, the Managing Committee under

the former Secretary had resolved to make every effort to support the

private respondent No. 6, being the daughter of the former Secretary to

get appointment, and this was inspite of objections being raised by the

present Secretary. It is also submitted that, concerted efforts which the

present Secretary had no part of, were made to facilitate the appointment

of the private respondent. He also prays that appropriate orders be passed

by this Court.

8. No appearance has been made on respondent No. 6, inspite of

service of notice on 09.04.2021, as indicated by the postal authorities, and

the same filed by way of an affidavit by the petitioner. As such, the matter

is being heard ex-parte against the respondent No. 6.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the clear facts

that emerge are that there has been suppression and manipulation by the

then Secretary of the Managing Committee to somehow get the

respondent No. 6 appointed. These facts are evident from the resolutions

and clarification given to the State respondents by falsely stating that the

respondent No. 6, was eligible as per the first advertisement when in fact,

the same was cancelled and the selection conducted was on the basis of

the second advertisement. This aspect of the case, strikes at the very core

of the entire issue, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 6 on the said date of

the second advertisement dated 16.01.2020, was over-aged. It is noted

that, the then Secretary vide letter dated 2nd December, 2020 (Annexure

- XII to the writ petition) addressed to the respondent No. 3, had also

admitted that, the first advertisement was cancelled and no such interview

was held. It is therefore, not understood, as to how the approval for

appointment was granted by the respondent No. 3, vide the impugned

order. Furthermore, from the impugned order itself, it is revealed that on

the date of the appointment, the respondent No. 6 had not cleared the

MTET eligibility test.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case therefore, the

appointment being illegal on the face of the record itself, the impugned

order is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the respondents shall take

steps to fill up the said post by a duly qualified teacher and in this process,

the petitioner may be considered in accordance with law.

11. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya 29.08.2022 "D.Thabah-PS"