WALSENG M. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The limited challenge in this writ petition is to a proviso to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Taxation Service Rules, 2020. Though the prayer in the petition indicates upon "set aside and quashed (sic) the proviso", the attack really has been on the second proviso to the sub-rule.

(2.) The petitioners herein were recruited to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Taxation Service Department of the State by the State Public Service Commission. The petitioners claim that they were required to have completed their school education up to the level of plus-two to be eligible to be considered for appointment. In contrast, the petitioners claim that another lot of LDAs into the Taxation Service were recruited from the Districts and not by the State Public Service Commission. The petitioners emphasise that the candidates directly recruited in the Districts were required to finish their education up to Class-X. As such, the petitioners justify, that the petitioners get a higher pay-band than those in the same post recruited from the Districts.

(3.) The matter herein pertains to the promotion to the post of Inspector of Taxes. Rule 7 of the said Rules of 2020 indicates the method of recruitment at various levels. Sub-rule (6) thereunder covers the post of Inspector of Taxes. In respect of Inspector of Taxes, 75 per cent of the total vacancies are required to be filled up by direct recruitment through a competitive examination. The remaining 25 per cent of the total vacancies are to be filled up by promotion from among the ministerial staff serving in the office of the Commissioner of Taxes or the Superintendent of Taxes who have rendered a minimum of five years of continuous service in the capacity of UDA or a combined service of 10 years with minimum educational qualification of Bachelor's degree in any discipline from such university as have been recognized. The first proviso to the sub-rule emphasises that the promotees to the post of Inspector of Taxes shall not at any time exceed 25 per cent of the total cadre strength. Such proviso, in effect, is repetitive of the provisions that precede it and does not really add anything new. It is the second proviso to the sub-rule which is of relevance in the present case: