WIMMIJANE PASSAH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of nine writ petitions involving virtually a common question of facts and of law were heard together, and are now being disposed of by a common judgment. All the petitioners are aspirants for the posts of Assistant Teachers in the Government Lower Primary Schools under the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience and brevity, I shall first decide W.P.(C) No. 106(SH) of 2010 and will attempt to apply, in so far as possible, my decision thereon to the facts of the remaining eight writ petitions. In this writ petition, there are forty-four petitioners and 95 private respondents in addition to the State-respondents. It may, however, be noted that the names of the petitioner No. 1, 6 and 45, on their prayers, were subsequently deleted from the cause title. By the advertisement dated 15-6-2006 published in the local papers, it was notified that Eligibility Tests (SET) for persons desirous of applying for the posts of Assistant Teachers in the Government Lower Primary Schools (LP Schools) were being conducted by the Directorate of Education Research and Training, Meghalaya and that the minimum eligibility for appearing in the Test was HSSLC/Class XII passed from any recognised University/Board with the age of not less than 18 years and not more than 27 years as on 1-7-2006 and upper age limit being relaxable by 5 years in respect of Schedule Tribes/Scheduled Caste. In response to the advertisement, all the petitioners herein applied for the eligibility test and were allowed to participate therein: all of them passed both the written examination and personal interview the test, the result whereof was published in order of merit and was displayed in the Notice Board of the Directorate of Educational Research and Training (DERT) and also at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIETS). However, none of the successful candidates were appointed for the posts, in my opinion, rightly so. In the meantime, the petitioners, who successfully passed the eligibility test known as SET came across the advertisement dated 10-12-2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools inviting applications from candidates for appointments to the posts of Assistant Teachers in the Government Lower Primary Schools in the scale of pay of Rs. 3450-5650/- per month and stipulating that such candidate should not be less than 18 years of age and more than 27 years of age (32 for SC/ST) on the 1st day of December, 2008. The candidates found to be eligible and qualified for the post would appear for personal interview which was to be conducted by the Selection Committee as constituted by the Government.

(3.) THE petitioners go on to allege that as per the advertisement dated 10-12-2008, the age limit for a candidate was to be not be less than 18 years of age and not more than 27 years of age (32 years for SC/ST) on the 1st day of December, 2008, but they were surprised to learn that a number of candidates who were overage had been allowed to participate in the personal interview and were selected for the posts in question. THE names of those candidates and their particulars indicated in a separate sheet marked C? are enclosed with the writ petition. Similarly, there are as many as 33 candidates who are underage were allotted marks for experience most illegally and were selected for the appointments. For example, candidates, whose names appeared at Serial No. 9, 13, 31, 33 and 38 were allotted marks for experience even though they were underage: they were also allotted 39 marks each as apparent from the score sheet. THEse are shown separately at Paper Mark D? in the writ petition. It is contended that the entire selection process is tainted by massive fraud, irregularities, arbitrariness, malpractices and nepotism to favour candidates sponsored and backed by politicians. This resulted in denying appointments to deserving and meritorious candidates and, conversely, in selecting unqualified, meritless and undeserving candidates thereby making a mockery of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the petitioners that the manner in which the marks were manipulated by the State-respondents in the score sheet is required to be seriously viewed as otherwise the public in general and the deserving candidates in particular will lose confidence in the public authorities: officials found to be responsible for act of commissions or omissions deserve severe punishment as future deterrent. It is thus a fit case for directing an enquiry/investigation of the selection process either by the State C.I.D. or C.B.I. THE petitioners, therefore, pray that appropriate orders be issued by this Court for quashing the entire selection process as well as the appointments of respondents No. 6 to 100 and thereafter direct the State-respondents to conduct fresh selection process.