BANSHANBOR MUKHIM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the order dated 22-6-2007 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya (respondent 4), terminating him from the post of a peon. The facts of the case, as pleaded by him, are that he was appointed as Peon in the Office of the respondent No. 4 on 10-7-2003, which was, however, subject to regularisation by the District Selection Committee ("DSC"). After serving in that post for about four years sincerely and diligently, the respondent No. 4 issued the letter dated 4-4-2007 upon him instructing him to inform him in writing on or before 10-4-2007 as to whether he had applied for, appeared in and passed the interview conducted by the DSC for regularisation of his officiating appointment and indicating therein that failure to reply within the fixed date, his office would not be held responsible. He promptly replied the letter by apprising him that he was not selected by the DSC as no advertisement was issued therefor and that when the advertisement was issued by the DSC for conducting an interview, he applied for the post along with the requisite challan vide No. 1985/12 dated 13-7-04. Unfortunately, he never received a calling letter for the said interview. It was only after he made an enquiry from the Office of the DSC that he was informed that the interview had been completed two months earlier. On or about 22-6-2007, he received the impugned order of termination, which he promptly challenged by this writ petition.

(2.) Contesting the writ petition, the State-respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, assert that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and subject to termination without notice or assigning any reason. It is pointed out by the answering respondents that the petitioner did not pass the examination conducted by the DSC and was, therefore, not qualified for the post; he cannot claim the post as a matter of right when he has miserably failed to get through the examination conducted by the DSC which every candidate has to pass for appointment according to the Government orders issued from time to time. Against the affidavit-in-opposition of the State-respondents, the petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit in which he asserts that though he had given his correct residential address, he never received a call letter for the said interview from the DSC and was, therefore, kept in the dark as and when the interview was to be conducted; he is, therefore, deprived of his chance to appeal' in the interview conducted by the DSC. It is claimed by the petitioner that as his allegations made in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of his writ petition are not controverted by the respondents, the same should be deemed to have been admitted.

(3.) Ms. N.G. Shylla, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when there is no dispute that the petitioner actually applied for the post in question, but was not given an opportunity to participate in the interview conducted by the DSC, the impugned order terminating his service is arbitrary, discriminatory and cannot be sustained in law. According to her, the petitioner has been treated unfairly and denied of equal opportunity clause guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. She, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to quash the impugned order and regularise his services. On the other hand, Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned counsel for the State, defends the impugned order and contends that once it is found that the petitioner did not pass the examination conducted by the DSC, he has no right to retain the post held by him purely on temporary basis and must give way to the candidate duly selected by the DSC consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.