ABU MASHUD Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts necessary to be noted herein are that pursuant to an advertisement dtd. 29/10/2018, issued by the respondents for conduct of the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) on 31/1/2019, 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 dtd. 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 29/4/2021. The State respondents then for the entire State vide notice dtd. 2/9/2021, announced the selection for the second batch of MTET, which was held on 9/10/2021 for all the 15 Centres of the State. The result for the second batch i.e., MTET, 2021 was declared on 8/12/2021, 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 dtd. 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 3/1/2022, which was then subsequently by another letter dtd. 6/1/2022 extended for another 15 days till 18/1/2022. Thereafter, another extension was given vide letter 19/1/2022, extending the last date for submission of applications to 31/1/2022. The petitioners' stand is that the subsequent notices and even the last advertisement notice dtd. 22/1/2022, 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 dtd. 24/1/2022, 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 dtd. 18/8/2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and letter dtd. 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 dtd. 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 dtd. 18/12/2021 (Annexure-17) on this ground itself is bad in law.