High Court of Meghalaya
Date Of Order : 14.08.2024 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 14 August, 2024
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2024:MLHC:736
Serial No.28
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 54 of 2024
Date of Order : 14.08.2024
Ms. Sofia Nongsiej
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
District Social Welfare Officer
West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. Miss Smti Kelba Mery Nongrum
Government of Meghalaya
Office of the District Social Welfare Officer
West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Ms. S.Nongsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S.Ain, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
2024:MLHC:736
1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the
post of Counsellor pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent
No. 1 dated 16-04-2023, and in the written examination held thereto,
secured the 2nd highest marks. The case of the petitioner is that having
secured the 2nd highest marks, however, after the interview, appointment
was afforded to the respondent No. 2 who had scored lower than her in the
written examination.
2. Ms. S.Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that it is not clear as to which authority had constituted the
interview board which had conducted the interview and granted higher
marks to the respondent No. 2. She further submits that it is not known as
to which appointing authority recommended and appointed the respondent
No. 2, and that the marks allocated in the interview were disproportionate
and it is also not known under which rule the said procedure had been
adopted.
3. Ms. S.Ain, learned GA appearing for the respondent No. 1 has fairly
submitted that once the writ petitioner has taken part in the selection
process and having been unsuccessful, cannot now challenge the process
as being illegal or void on the grounds as set out by the petitioner. She
further submits that the selection committee interview board has been
constituted as per mandate of the Integrated Child Development Scheme
2024:MLHC:736
which was chaired by the Deputy Commissioner and other members. She
further submits that the petitioner after not being successful in the selection
process cannot claim that there has been any illegality in the appointment
of the respondent No. 2.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on record. A perusal of Annexure-1 annexed to the affidavit filed
by the State respondents reflects that the petitioner has scored the 2 nd
highest marks of 65% in the written examination and had obtained 22.4
marks in the interview. The respondent No. 2, who is not represented
before this Court, it is noted, had scored 63% in the written examination
and 30.2 marks in the interview. A perusal of the members of the interview
board also indicates that the Chairman was the Deputy Commissioner
which also consisted of the Member Secretary District Social Welfare
Officer, the District Programme Officer, the District Child Protection
Officer, the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee and also the
Member of the Juvenile Justice Board. The contention of the petitioner that
the interview board has been constituted improperly cannot be accepted as
it is seen that it comprises of members who are experts in the field.
5. In this backdrop, firstly, as the writ petitioner had taken part in the
selection process and has now sought to challenge the same and there
being no patent illegality made out in the entire process, and further the
2024:MLHC:736
results of the interview being on the basis of an expert committee, where
this Court cannot substitute the findings thereof, there is no merit in the
instant writ petition and the same is dismissed.
6. Matter accordingly stands disposed of.
Judge
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
