INAVI Vs. W. RENPONTHUNG YANTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 13.6.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) 23(K)/04. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and interfered with the selection process for filling up 791 posts of Under Graduate Teachers in the State of Nagaland advertised on 7.7.2003.

(2.) The brief facts that will be required to be noticed to effectively decide the issues arising in the appeal may now be stated:

(3.) The written examination which was the initial step in the selection process was scheduled to be held on 19.8.2003. However, the said date was deferred and ultimately the written examination was held on 27.9.2003. The precise number of candidates who took part in the written examination is not known, though it is certain that such number was sufficiently high. On 13.1.2004, the results of all the selection centers, except three, were declared whereas the results of the remaining three centers were declared on 12.2.2004. The number of candidates who qualified in the written examination and became eligible to be called for the interview, on a very conservative estimate, exceeded 3000 in number. The writ Petitioners in WP(C) 23(K)/2004, who are 13 in number (4 Petitioners were deleted subsequently), did not qualify for the interview except the writ Petitioner No. 8. In terms of the results declared, the interviews were to be held between 25th and 29th January, 2004. However, the said dates got indefinitely postponed and, in the meantime, on 17th/18th January, 2004 a corrigendum was published in the newspapers making some corrections in the result of the written examination earlier declared on 13.1.2004. Such corrections extended to deletion of the names of candidates who were earlier declared to have qualified as also correction of some roll numbers which were earlier declared to have qualified. The roll number of the Petitioner No. 8 who had earlier qualified was also deleted. While the aforesaid developments were going on, another Office Memorandum dated 20.1.2004 was issued changing the constitution of the District Selection Boards and deleting certain provisions contained in the earlier Office Memorandum dated 4.6.2001. The most significant deletion that has to be noticed is with regard to the stipulation of minimum 40% qualifying marks which was done away with. Thereafter, on 4.2.2004 a decision was taken to the effect that the ad hoc teachers, who were candidates in the selection, would be granted 20 grace marks for the purpose of reckoning their eligibility to be called for the interview. After award of the aforesaid grace marks to the extent of 20, 59 more persons (ad hoc teachers) were declared to have qualified for the interviews which were to be held between 9th and 14th March, 2004. At this stage, on 11.3.2004, WP(C) No. 23(K)/2004 was filed wherein an interim order was passed directing the official Respondents not to proceed with the selection any further. Subsequently, by order dated 13.6.2005 the said writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved, the Appellants have instituted the present appeal.