KOPELO LETUO Vs. NAGALAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nagaland Public Service Commission ("NPSC" in short) issued Advertisement No. NPSC-1/2016 dated 20.06.2016 inviting applications for filling up of various vacancies in different Departments under the Government of Nagaland. Therein, at Item No. 23, one post of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education was advertised and the same was reserved for the Backward Tribe of Chang. The petitioners being qualified in terms of the educational qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement applied for the post of PGT-Computer Science. In the meantime, the NPSC issued another Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 in continuation of the Advertisement dated 20.06.2016 inviting application for filling up 4 (four), different posts which included another one post of PGT-Computer Science thereby increasing the number of the post of PGT-Computer Science to two posts.

(2.) Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents Nos. 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 despite service of notice.

(3.) Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final select list published by the Notification dated 4.5.2017 had recommended only two persons, one for the backward tribe, Chang and one for the unreserved category. The petitioners having qualified and appeared before the Viva-Voice therefore, should have been recommended for appointment to the remaining two posts of PGT-Computer Science. Instead, the respondents have proceeded to issue the Notification dated 12.05.2017 after the process of selection was complete by inviting three other persons to appear before the Viva-Voice and further with a decision to re-advertise one post of PGT-Computer science due to nonavailability of eligible candidate. The action of the NPSC is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, when the petitioners could have been considered for the remaining two posts, the NPSC has instead proceeded to issue the impugned Notification dated 12.5.2017 without any basis. He also submits that by the Notification dated 6.4.2017, four candidates including the present petitioners were called for the Viva-Voice for the four post of PGT-Computer Science. Further, in the Notification dated 04.05.2017, no reasons have been assigned about the non-availability of eligible candidate for the post of PGT-Computer Science and therefore, the present petitioners are entitled to be recommended for appointment in the Notification dated 4.5.2017. He also submits that at Note 2 of the Notification dated 24.02017, it is clearly indicated that the ratio of candidates/vacancies as per the NPSC (State Civil & Other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008, under Rule 15 (4) cannot be maintained in some post in view of insufficient eligible candidates. Therefore, when only four eligible candidates were called for viva-voice for the 4 (four) posts of PGT-Computer Science in terms of the Notification dated 06.04.2017 wherein, the names of the petitioners were also included, they should have been recommended for appointment along with the other two successful candidates. In that view of the matter, he submits that the Notification dated 12.05.2017 be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment to the remaining two posts of PGT-Computer Science.