CLEMENT D. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L. Lingdoh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 inasmuch as the petitioner No. 2 is already dead. I have also heard Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned Senior Government Advocate, Meghalaya, appearing for the State respondents. The controversy, in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has arisen out of an advertisement, dated 10.02.2010, published by the respondents, whereby the respondent No. 4, namely, Meghalaya Public Service Commission (in short, 'MPSC'), has invited applications to fill up, amongst others, 23 (twenty-three) posts of Inspector of Excise, 19 (nineteen) of the said posts being meant for male candidates and 4 (four) for female candidates. On the ground that the petitioners are eligible, in terms of the relevant Draft Recruitment Rules, known as The Meghalaya Excise (Subordinate) Service Rules (in short, the 'Draft Rules'), for promotion to the post of Inspector of Excise and that if the said 23 (twenty-three) vacancies are filled up by way of direct recruitment, the present petitioners would be deprived from being promoted to the post of Inspector of Excise and they would suffer stagnation in their service, the petitioners have put to challenge, by way of the present Writ petition, the advertisement, dated 10.02.2010, aforementioned.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ petition, the said Draft Rules have been finalized, named as 'The Meghalaya Excise' (Subordinate) Service Rules, 2010 (in short, the 'Finalised Service Rules'), and the same have been published on 10.08.2010.

(3.) A bare reading of the Draft Rules shows that Rule 6(1) of the Draft Rules related to the filling up of vacancies in the post of Inspector of Excise. Rule 6(1) of the Draft Service Rules, being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow: