Abu Mashud & 21 Ors. vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 619 Meg

 Serial No. 01
 Regular List


                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 16 of 2022                       Date of Decision: 25.10.2022


Abu Mashud & 21 Ors.              Vs.       State of Meghalaya & Ors.

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


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :    Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
                                 Ms. A. Kharshiing, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :    Mr. A. Kumar, AG with

Ms. R. Colney, GA (For R 1-6) Mr. L.R. Das, Adv. with Ms. M. Chakraborty, Adv. (For R 7)

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

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



                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The brief facts necessary to be noted herein are that pursuant

to an advertisement dated 29.10.2018, issued by the respondents for

conduct of the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) on

31.01.2019, the writ petitioners along with others had appeared for the

said exam in Dadenggre Centre. The results for the said examination for

all the districts were declared except for Dadenggre Centre, which was

withheld due to the leakage of question papers in that centre. Thereafter,

vide notice dated 29.11.2020, it was informed that the MTET, 2019

Examination with regard to Dadenggre Centre would be re-conducted.

The writ petitioners thereafter sat for the aforesaid examination which

was held on 15.12.2020 and were declared successful vide results which

was declared on 29.04.2021. The State respondents then for the entire

State vide notice dated 02.09.2021, announced the selection for the

second batch of MTET, which was held on 09.10.2021 for all the 15

Centres of the State. The result for the second batch i.e., MTET, 2021

was declared on 08.12.2021, for all the 15 centres including Dadenggre,

wherein 202 candidates from Dadenggre Sub-Division were declared

passed.

2. It appears that the grievance of the writ petitioners stems

from the fact that the second batch of MTET 2021, were also sought to

be included by the respondents for selection, inasmuch as, by a notice

dated 13.12.2021, the last date for application for the post of Assistant

Teachers under Dadenggre Sub-Division was extended from 10.12.2021

to 03.01.2022, which was then subsequently by another letter dated

06.01.2022 extended for another 15 days till 18.01.2022. Thereafter,

another extension was given vide letter 19.01.2022, extending the last

date for submission of applications to 31.01.2022. The petitioners' stand

is that the subsequent notices and even the last advertisement notice

dated 22.01.2022, re-advertising the same post of 159 sanctioned posts

of Assistant Teachers in Dadenggre Sub-division, was only to suit and

accommodate the second batch i.e., MTET, 2021 candidates illegally.

Another grievance that has been put up, is with a notice dated

24.01.2022, wherein the MTET 2021, candidates were exempted from

attaching the MTET certificate at the time of application, but allowed to

produce the same only at the time of interview, which the writ petitioners

allege, has altered the criteria prescribed for selection.

3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms.

A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the

competent authority of the State had made a conscious decision to

conduct the selection as it is apparent from the letter dated 18.08.2021

(Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and letter dated 26.11.2021

(Annexure-R/1 to State affidavit), but the subsequent actions allowing

the MTET 2021 batch to be clubbed together is untenable. He further

submits that even if the above clubbing is permissible, the first extension

vide letter dated 13.12.2021, issued by the Director (respondent No. 3),

extending the date of submission of applications and allowing the MTET

2021 batch to take part in the selection process is without jurisdiction as

the Director (respondent No. 3) does not have jurisdiction to the same.

Hence, he contends that the second advertisement dated 18.12.2021

(Annexure-17) on this ground itself is bad in law.

4. Learned Senior counsel maintains that the entire sequence

of extensions is vitiated, inasmuch as, clubbing together of two batches

of MTET is not permissible, as for the other centres in the State, selection

was done separately. Learned Senior counsel submits that the third and

fourth advertisement and relaxation of criteria is without authority and

jurisdiction, and has in effect changed the rules of the game. However,

he concedes that up to the second advertisement dated 18.12.2021, the

said selection may be allowed in the interest of justice, fairness and

equity. In support of his contentions leaned Senior counsel has placed

reliance on the following decisions.

i) Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Kaila Kumar

Paliwal and Another (2007) 10 SCC 260 (Para 21)

ii) Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

AIR (2008) SC 1657 (Para 3)

iii) Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed Graduate Teachers

Welfare Society (1) vs. Higher Secondary School Computer

Teachers Association and Others (2009) 14 SCC 517 (Para

33)

iv) Mutha Associates and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others (2013) 14 SCC 304 (Para 42 & 43)

v) Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia

and Others (2004) 2 SCC 65 (Para 25 & 26)

vi) Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others (2013) 1

SCC 501 (Para 18).

5. On behalf of the State respondents, it has been strenuously

argued by Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG, that the petitioners have no

legal right to prohibit the extension of the recruitment process, and that

there must be a judicially enforceable right, before one suffering a

legal grievance can seek for a mandamus. It is submitted that as per

the Right to Education Act, 2009, possession of minimum

qualifications laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the

Central Government, for being eligible for appointment as a teacher,

is a must. However, possession of such minimum qualifications, he

submits, does not create any right in favour of a candidate, other than

a right to be considered for selection. In this respect, it is submitted,

the petitioners right to be considered is still guaranteed and the

extension of the recruitment process, by the Government to include a

larger pool of eligible persons for selection is in no way violative of

any legal right of the petitioners.

6. It has also been contended that, the total vacancies of 159

posts, outnumber the MTET 2019 qualified candidates, who were only

115 in number, and it would be contrary to public interest, to first

appoint these 115 candidates to the said vacancies, and only then move

on to fill the balance vacancies. It is further submitted that, if the

contention of the petitioners is accepted, merit would be compromised

in the selection process, as precedence would be given to persons who

became eligible prior in time, irrespective of their merit position. The

learned AG has submitted that the prayer of the petitioners to proceed

and conclude the interview only with the MTET 2019 batch, that is,

the writ petitioner and their colleagues is unsustainable in law. In

support of his arguments, learned AG has placed reliance on the

following judgments:

i) State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and others

reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220.

ii) Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar

Gupta and Anr. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 178.

iii) Union of India vs. Kali Dass Batish reported in (2006) 1 SCC

779.

7. It has been further submitted that, the scope of judicial

review, is limited, inasmuch as, the only right that the petitioners

possess is for consideration for appointment, and that the State

Government has exercised its discretion to extend the recruitment

process, to include 2021 MTET candidates on good reasons. The

power to extend the cut-off date, it is argued, is available with the

Government and is an administrative action, and in the present case,

the extension has only increased the pool of eligible candidates and

therefore, it cannot be said that the said extension is arbitrary or illegal.

The learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of Govt.

of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. N. Subbarayudu & others reported in

(2008) 14 SCC 702, in support of his arguments.

8. The learned AG has also submitted that, the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties namely the

successful candidates of MTET 2021, as these candidates will be

directly affected, in case a decision is passed for scrapping the

extension. He submits that the Principles of Natural Justice, demand

that these successful candidates should be made party in the present

case. These principles he contends, has been noted in the following 2

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely;

i) Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht, (2010) 12 SCC

204.

ii) State of Assam v. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408.

9. With regard to changing the rules of the game, after

commencement of process, as alleged by the petitioner, the learned

AG submits that, the extension of dates for application is not a change

in the rules of the game, and may have led to a situation where if the

number of candidates who applied before the cut-off date are

insufficient, the same cannot be extended. It is also contended that the

permission granted allowing the MTET 2021 candidates to produce

their MTET certificates, at the stage of interview, does not amount to

altering the rules of the game, but was done to increase the number of

applicants. Furthermore, it is submitted, as on the date of fresh

advertisement dated 15.12.2021, all persons who met the eligibility

criteria were entitled to be considered, which would obviously include

all MTET 2019 and MTET 2021. The requirement of law, he submits

is that, as on the date of advertisement, the persons applying must be

eligible to be appointed and that in the present case, as on 15.12.2021,

the writ petitioner and the MTET 2021 candidates, were eligible. It

has been further argued, that the petition is also unsustainable on

merits, as orders of advertisement are purely policy matters forming

part of administrative action and discretion. He therefore submits that,

the writ petition being devoid of any merit is unsustainable and liable

to be dismissed.

10. Mr. L.R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 who

has appeared in MTET 2021 examinations and is an applicant for the

post of Assistant Teacher in Assamese medium, has endorsed and

supported the submissions made by the learned Advocate General.

11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. The

controversy with regard to the extension of the dates for application to

the post of Assistant Teachers in Dadenggre Sub-Division, has arisen

only due to the fact that, the first round of examinations for MTET

qualification held in January, 2019, for Dadenggre were nullified due

to the leakage of papers, whereas, for all other 14 centres in the State

results were declared and selections were conducted. Thereafter, the

MTET test was duly re-conducted on 15.12.2020, for MTET 2019, for

which the petitioners qualified. Though, the exercise in conducting the

said exams was completed, no selection was held, as even as on

18.08.2021, as reflected by a communication so dated, the vacancy

position has been sought for by the respondent No. 2, from the

respondent No. 4, along with an action plan for recruitment including

time lines. In the meanwhile, it appears vide an advertisement dated

02.09.2021, examinations for MTET 2021, for the entire State was

issued and the said examination was held on 09.10.2021, and results

were declared on 08.12.2021, for all centres.

12. The grievance of the petitioners stems from the fact that,

prior to the declaration of results of MTET 2021 on 08.12.2021, an

advertisement had been floated on 02.12.2021, for recruitment which

in the event, had been proceeded with, would may be, have confined

the eligible candidates to only those candidates of the MTET 2019

batch, notwithstanding the fact, that last date for receipt of the

applications was on 10.12.2021, two days after the declaration of the

results of MTET 2021. It is however, relevant to note, at this stage

itself that, the advertisement only stipulated that the candidates should

compulsorily possess an MTET passed certificate, without indicating

the year.

13. The sequence of events thereafter is that, the last date for

submission of applications i.e., 10.12.2021, was extended to

03.01.2022, on 13.12.2021 by the respondents and by a Corrigendum

dated 15.12.2021, the total number of vacancies were shown as 159

for Dadenggre Sub-Division. Advertisement was then issued on

18.12.2021, wherein, the MTET 2021 qualified candidates were also

invited to apply. This was followed by another extension issued by

advertisement dated 06.01.2022, whereby the date of receipt of

applications were again extended till 18.01.2022, and lastly, by

advertisement dated 22.01.2022, the period was then again extended

till 31.01.2022. The matter being situated thus, this Court is only to

examine as to whether, the repeated extension of the dates of

application and inclusion of the MTET 2021, qualified candidates has

vitiated the principles of fairness and transparency in a public selection

process.

14. As observed earlier, this situation arose only due to the fact

that, the MTET test for 2019 had to be re-conducted, which more or

less, blurred the time line between the MTET 2019 batch and MTET

2021 batch. It is to be noted that, the selection process for Dadenggre

Sub-Division commenced with the advertisement dated 02.12.2021,

with the last date of submission of applications being 10.12.2021. The

advertisement dated 02.12.2021, did not limit the selection to only the

MTET 2019 batch, but only stipulated that, candidates should be in

possession of an MTET passed certificate. The results for MTET

2021, were declared on 08.12.2021, which necessarily means that on

10.12.2021, the last date fixed for receipt of applications, many more

candidates in Dadenggre Sub-Division had become eligible to be

selected for the said advertised posts. Another factor that, merits

attention is that, after the re-conduct of the MTET 2019 examination,

115 candidates in the Sub-Division were declared successful, whereas,

they were 159 vacancies to be filled. To limit, the selection to only the

MTET 2019 batch, therefore, would not have sufficed to fill up the

said vacancies. Reasons for the delay in the selection process have also

been laid out in the affidavit of the respondents, which are attributed

to the conduct of bye elections to the Assembly Constituency under

Dadenggre Sub-Division, as also the District Council Elections that

followed which entailed the suspension of the process recruitment due

to the Model Code of Conduct.

15. The stand of the writ petitioners that, the relief may be

moulded by holding the selection process only for the applicants who

had applied for the post, in pursuance to the first advertisement dated

02.12.2021, read with Corrigendum dated 15.12.2021, and second

advertisement dated 08.12.2021, is also not tenable, inasmuch as, even

by the advertisement dated 18.12.2021, the MTET 2021 candidates,

have been invited to take part in the selection, on the basis of the letter

No. DSEL/EL/GA/Misc/10/2020/Pt-11 dated 13.12.2021. The

subsequent extensions which have been impugned i.e., dated

06.01.2022 and 22.01.2022, both carry the same refrain, that is, they

refer to the same letter, by which the initial extension was granted.

16. Looking into the larger picture, the main contention of the

writ petitioners that, the eligible candidates of MTET 2019 and MTET

2021, cannot be clubbed together in a single selection process is

unsustainable. Firstly, as per the materials on record, the vacancy

position in Dadenggre Sub-Division, after the Corrigendum stood at

159, whereas, only 115 candidates were available from the MTET

2019 batch. It stands to reason that, in such a selection, merit would

have to be given a go bye, when in fact, it should be the primary

consideration. The extension therefore to include the MTET 2021

batch, would definitely ensure that a larger pool of eligible candidates

would be available for selection, which would in turn, ensure that the

quality of the teachers would be the best available.

17. The only right that the petitioners seek to enforce in the

instant case, is one of legitimate expectation, but however, the only

right that has accrued in favour of the petitioners upon clearing the

MTET, is for consideration for selection. Apart from the challenge to

the extensions, no case has been made out to show that the petitioners

have been discriminated against, or have been unfairly treated in any

manner. The right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment

is intact, but this right does not extend to insist, that the selection be

confined only to the MTET 2019 batch. If the decision of the

respondents to extend the cut-off date was blatantly illegal, which

would have led to an anomalous situation, the same would surely

warrant interference by the Courts, but in the instant case, on close

examination, it is seen that, the same has been made on valid

considerations.

18. The scope of judicial review, in respect of decisions taken

by the Government in recruitment matters is also limited. The decision

to extend the cut-off date is an executive decision, in the exercise of

necessity and exigencies, while taking into account all attendant

factors, that have an impact and bearing on the selection process. The

decision-making process, in extending the cut-off date, nowhere

reflecting that the same was on other considerations, therefore, cannot

be interfered with in the present case.

19. The allegations that the rules of the game have been

changed, also does not have any substance, inasmuch as, it has only

provided that, the qualified candidates may present the MTET

certificate, at the time of interview. Without alluding to the decisions

placed by the respective counsels, on the basis of the discussions made

hereinabove and, in the facts, and circumstances of the case, no

interference is called for in the recruitment process by this Court, in

exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with

no order as to costs.

Judge

Meghalaya 25.10.2022 "D.Thabah-PS"