SHRI HAMARBATHEW PUWEIN, S/O SHRI C. DIENGDOH R/O MAWKAWAK P.O. NONGSTOIN, WEST KHASI HILLS DISTRICT, MEGHALAYA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA, SHILLONG AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the State-respondents to appoint him, on the basis of the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, to the post of Gram Sevaks in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Mawshynrut C&RD Block Government of Meghalaya.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 (Secretary, District Selection Committee, West Khasi Hills), issued the Advertisement dated 26-6-2001 inviting application from interested candidates for filling up, among others, the posts of Gram Sevak/Sevika. The petitioner applied for the advertised posts of Gram Sevak/Gram/Sevika and participated in the written examination conducted by the District Selection Committee. Having qualified in the written examination, he was called for personal interview, and was ultimately included in the Select List published on 22-12-2003 at Serial No. 26. The Select List was apparently prepared to fill up the posts of Gram Sevak/Gram Sevika subject to availability of vacancies on the basis of merit within a period of one year of the publication thereof. According to the petitioner, the validity period of the Select List was extended from time to time and twenty-five candidates from Serial No. 1 to 25 of the Select List were appointed to the posts of Gram Sevak/Gram Sevika in the month of April, 2006, but one of the candidates refused to accept the offer of appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that on the refusal of this candidate, he could have been offered the appointment in the resultant vacancy. It is also claimed by the petitioner that there were at that point of time several other vacant posts of Gram Sevak, but the State-respondents refused to appoint for no apparent reason. On the contrary, the State-respondents by the order contained in the letter dated 24-7-2006 appointed the petitioner temporarily to officiate as Gram Sevak in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Mawsynrut C&RD Block for a period of 89 days despite the availability of vacancies for the post of Gram Sevak/Gram Sevika. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities for his regular appointment, but the same proved futile. In the meantime, his officiating appointment was extended from time to time for a period of 89 days with artificial breaks. Instead of regularising his services, the respondent No. 2, however, issued the advertisement dated 11-5-2007 for filling up 19 (nineteen) posts of Gram Sevika/Gram Sevak along with some other posts. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned advertisement has the effect of depriving him of his right to the post of Gram Sevak on the basis of the recommendation of the District Selection Committee dated 22-12-2003 and is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary. It is also the contention of the petitioner that when the candidates in the Select List dated 22-12-2003 from Serial Nos. 1 to 25 were given appointment by extending the life of the Select List, the refusal of the State-respondent to appoint him under similar circumstances is discriminatory and, therefore, violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the State-respondents to quash the impugned advertisement and regularise his services in the post of Gram Sevak on the basis of the Select List in question.

(3.) Opposing the writ petition, the State-respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, assert that the validity period of the said Select List was never extended as claimed by the petitioner. It is contended that the said Select List does not guarantee his appointment nor does it confer upon him any right to appointment for the post of Gram Sevak. According to the State-respondents, the candidates in Serial Nos. 1 to 25 of the Select List were given those appointments during the validity period of the Select List which expired on 31-12-2005, and as the life of the Select List has thus expired, the District Selection Committee is not in a position to appoint the petitioner to that post. The District Selection Committee is not aware of any refusal of appointment by any candidates in the Select List as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Gram Sevak in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Mawshynrut on temporary basis against the vacant post which arose in 2006 following the death of one Gram Sevak on 8-3-2006, and such appointment was subject to termination without prior notice or without assigning any reason. The services of the petitioner were extended from time to time for a period of 89 days vide the orders dated 24-7-2006, dated 10-11-2006, dated 13-3-2007 and dated 4-5-2007 with one or two days' break in the interregnum. The number of posts so advertised is six and not nineteen as contended by the petitioner and these vacancies arose from the month of March, 2006 onwards. No injustice has been done to the petitioner warranting the interference of this Court.