STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. PHIKIRBHA KHARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preliminary AND BRIEF OUTLINE

(2.) The dispute and the issues in this batch of cases have their genesis in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Lower Primary Schools in the State of Meghalaya that was taken up at different Centres in the years 2008 2009 and pursuant whereof, several persons were appointed as Assistant Teacher but several unsuccessful candidates preferred nine writ petitions, The writ petitions were filed in the Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court that was, at the relevant time, exercising jurisdiction over the State of Meghalaya, while questioning the selection process as being illegal and malafide. These writ petitions were decided together by a learned Single Judge by the common order dated 21.10.2011, with the conclusion, inter alia, that there was strong prima facie evidence of "massive irregularities, arbitrariness and manipulations"; and that a fair and impartial inquiry into the entire selection process was imperative, which could be realised only through the Central Bureau Investigation ["CBI"]. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the CBI to carry out the necessary inquiry in regard to the specific allegations occurring in the averments taken in the writ petitions as also in the papers annexed thereto; and further directed that on the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent authorities would take consequential actions, including cancellation of the entire selection process and all the appointments and restarting of the process. Pursuant to these directions, the CBI conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 05.03.2012 in the High Court in a sealed cover. However, the order so passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in intra-court appeals which were again considered as group matters and were decided by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court by the common judgment dated 16.08.2012. The Hon'ble Division Bench accepted the submissions made on behalf of the State that inquiry by CBI was not requisite and the matter ought to have been left for appropriate scrutiny and inquiry by the Government. The Division Bench, however, did not annul the report of the CBI but directed that the records be reviewed and be re-scrutinised by the Committee, to be constituted by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in its Education Department, regarding the candidature of selected and unselected candidates within the ambit and scope of the writ petitions filed before the Court while taking beneficial assistance and guidance of the findings, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI in its report. The Division Bench further directed that the services of the tainted candidates be terminated; the bonafide untainted candidates be retained; and the unselected, who were otherwise found eligible, be appointed.

(3.) Pursuant to the directions aforesaid, a so-called High Level Scrutiny Committee ["HLSC"/"the Committee"] was constituted by the Government. This Committee proceeded to make its report on 29.07.2013 with the findings on several tainted candidates and with observations on several aspects that shall be detailed out hereafter later. The Committee recommended for termination of the services of tainted candidates, and for retention of untainted selected candidates as also for appointment of other untainted candidates, who were otherwise found eligible. Pursuant to this report, steps were taken by the Director, School Education and Literacy to terminate the services of 246 candidates in the month of February 2014. After such steps by the Government and its officials, some of the terminated candidates preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal ["SLP"] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging their termination orders along with the judgment dated 16.08.2012 whereas some other terminated candidates preferred the writ petitions in this Court challenging their orders of termination. On 21.04.2014, operation of the Judgment dated 16.08.2012 was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and thereafter, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, proceedings in the writ petitions filed in this Court were kept in abeyance. A few more terminated as also unsuccessful candidates sought impleadment in the pending SLP but, the Hon'ble Supreme Court only extended them liberty to express their views as interveners.