ALPHUIS L. SUTNGA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide advertisement dated 19th April, 2018 applications were invited for the post of Assistant Teacher in St. Dominic Higher Secondary School, Mawkyndeng, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. The writ petitioner on being qualified for the post in all respects applied for the same. However, without declaring the results of the personal interview, which was held on 27.04.2018, and without cancelling the selection process, which was initiated as per the advertisement dated 19th April, 2018, the respondent No. 6 again floated another advertisement calling for application for the same post on 3rd May, 2018. The petitioner being aggrieved, inasmuch as, he was the only candidate for the said post, has come before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner who submits that the conduct of the respondent in the entire matter is highly arbitrary, and tainted by malafides, inasmuch as, inspite of the petitioner being the only candidate, the respondent No. 5 and 6 has sought to deprive him of the appointment by resorting to a fresh advertisement without declaring the results of the interview. He submits that, he being the only candidate and having performed well in the interview, there was no reason why he not be appointed. His further contention is that, in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5 and 6, derogatory statements has been made against him, which has cast a stigma upon his competency and caliber as a teacher. He draws the attention of the Court to the statements made at Para 6 Page 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition also that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum 20 marks out of 50 marks from each interviewer, and that, he secured 44 marks only instead of securing a minimum of 80 marks as required. He submits that all this was revealed in the affidavit without there being any official communication from the side of the respondent No. 5 and 6 as to the fate of the selection and as to why they have resorted to re-advertisement. He also submits that this being the situation, the respondents were liable to expunge the remarks that he had failed in the selection, as this would have an adverse effect on his career prospects. He further submits that the statements made by the respondents on affidavit that the writ petitioner couldn't accept his own failure is defamatory and degrading. He closes the submissions by reiterating the earlier points and arguments and by further submitting that the respondents could at least have re-advertised the post with the clarification that no one was selected in the earlier round of selection instead of making disparaging remarks against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. P.A. Dohkrut, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and 6 submits that the re-advertisement was occasioned because the petitioner was not found suitable, and that permission was sought from the competent authority i.e. the District of School Education Officer, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai to re-advertise the post and accordingly, the post was re-advertised.