NELSON KHARNABI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the two petitioners are challenging the decision of the State-respondents in not appointing them to the posts of the Meghalaya Police Service (MPS) even though they were included in the select list prepared by the Meghalaya Public Servicee Commission (MPSC) in 2003.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 (MPSC) issued an advertisement on 15.5.2001 for recruitment of fourteen posts of MPS by direct recruitment. The petitioners appeared in the written tests conducted by the respondent No. 4, and were declared successful in the test. They were called for the interview held from 3.12.2003 to 16.12.2003 in which they participated and were found eligible for the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police whereafter the select list was published on 22.12.2003 in order of merit. The petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 24 and 30 in the select list of 32 candidates so published. According to the petitioners, out of the said select list, the respondent No. 4 by the notification dated 19.1.2004 brought out a list of 25 candidates to be appointed in the MPS on probation with effect from the date of taking over the charge leaving out six candidates waiting for appointment. The names of the petitioners did not find a place among those 25 candidates short-listed for the appointment though the respondent No. 4 and three others, who were placed much below them in the merit list prepared by the respondent No. 4, were eventually appointed to MPS on the basis of such short-listing. It is stated by the petitioners that there was no mention of quota in the advertisement dated 15.5.2001. The validity of the select list was for a period of one year, which was to expire on 22.12.2004. When the representations made by them to the respondent authorities became pointless, they were compelled to file WP(C) No. 402(SH) of 2004 and WP(C) No. 400(SH) of 2004 before this Court, which was well before the expiry of the validity period of the select list dated 22.12.2003. This Court on 10.12.2004 passed an interim order observing that the pendency of the writ petition would not be a bar against the State-respondents from considering the case of the petitioners for the appointment. The petitioners accordingly approached the State-respondents for considering their case for the appointment as two posts were lying vacant following the promotion of one S. Nongenger to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police in August, 2004 and the retirement on superannuation of one M. War, MPS in the year 2006, but to no avail.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, much to their surprise, the MPSC issued the advertisement dated 22.11.2006 for recruiment to the posts of Meghalaya Civil Service and MPS. According to them, on the basis of the statements made by the learned Senior Government Advocate in the open Court that the State-respondents were considering their prayer for appointment, they sought for, and were granted permission by this Court on 1.3.2007 and 5.3.2007 to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file fresh cases if their prayers were not considered favourably. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 gave them verbal assurance that they would be considered for appointment. However, no appointment orders were issued by the State-respondents. Subsequently, they came to know from the Principal Information Officer, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Meghalaya under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that there were 52 sanctioned posts in the Junior Duty Posts of MPS, out of which twenty-six were to be filled up by direct recruitment and another twenty-six posts were to be filled up by promotion and that as on 17.6.2003 when written examination was held for direct recruitment, there were only 25 vacancies as one post was still being held by one S. Nongtynger, MPS, direct recruit of the previous batch and further that as on 4.3.2006, there was one vacancy for direct recruit following the promotion of the said S. Nongtynger on 3.8.2004 to the Senior Scale. The petitioners also found from the note dated 30.8.2004 signed by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department that as per Rule 7 of the Meghalaya Police Service Rules, 1996, the proportion of vacancies to be filled up is 50:50 respectively. The note further revealed that "besides, 26 promotees, another promotee Shri S. Dkhar has been promoted as DSP(CWS) under MPS thereby bringing the number of MPS promotees to 27. Hence at present the ratio is 27:25". This, according to the petitioners, exhibits gross irregularity against the extant Rules. Moreover, the state-respondents have not clarified as to why the vacancy arising out of the promotion of S. Nongtynger on 3.8.2004 was not filled up by the next candidate on the merit list prepared by the respondent No. 4 on 22.12.2003, which was still valid at that time.