Bester N. Marak vs State of Meghalaya and Ors

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, and having perused the material placed on record, this

Court is satisfied that the present petition, being only an attempt to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court with concealment of material facts as

also with distortion of true and correct facts, deserves to be dismissed at its threshold with costs.

The petitioner has projected the case in this petition that by the advertisement bearing No. NGH/S&WC/Estt/DSC-2014-15/220 dated

26.11.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, Resubelpara, North Garo Hills District invited applications for filling up 5 vacant post of Demonstrator

(Jr-I) in Soil& Water Conservation Department. The averments in this regard in paragraph 2 of the petition read as under:

That the Office of the Deputy Commissioner Resubelpara North Garo Hills District has made advertisement vide Memo No.

NGH/S&WA/Estt/DSC-2014-15/330 dated 26.11.2014 inviting the application in standard form from the permanent resident of Meghalaya for

filling up 5 vacant post of Demonstrators in Soil and Water Conservation department in the divisional Soil and water Conservation Department,

North Garo Hills District and other various categories/fourth grade IV post in various Department in North Garo Hills District Meghalaya.

The petitioner has thereafter averred that he submitted the application in the standard form and participated in the selection process. However,

the petitioner has not placed on record a copy of the referred advertisement, pursuant whereof he applied and participated in the selection process.

This omission assumes significance, as shall be noticed a little later. The petitioner has, however, placed on record the result of selection process,

as declared on 22.05.2015 (Annexure - I), wherein four selected candidates were placed in merit at serial number 1 to 4 and he was placed in the

waiting list at serial number 1.

The petitioner has further averred that there had been 5 vacancies on the said post of Demonstrator (Jr.-I) and even after joining of the said four

persons, one post was lying vacant and despite being entitled, he was not being appointed on the said post. The petitioner has particularly relied

upon a letter bearing No. NGH/S&WC/ESTT/DSC/2015-16/483 dated 11.12.2015 as sent by the Divisional Officer, North Garo Hills Soil &

Water Conservation Division, Resubelpara to the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, North Garo Hills, Resubelpara to suggest that

there were 5 vacancies on the post of Demonstrator (Jr.-I). However, in this very communication dated 11.12.2015, remarks had been distinctly

stated as follows:

Already submitted vide memo no. NGH/S&WC/Estt./DSC/2014-15/330 Dt 26/11/2014 4 Nos. 1(one) No. Is not yet submitted.

The petitioner has suggested that he made several representations for appointment on the vacant post but all his representations have gone

unattended. Thus, essentially with the suggestion that there were 5 vacancies and 4 had been filled up, the petitioner has prayed for the relief in this

petition filed in the month of November, 2016 that the validity of select list may be ordered to be extended and the authorities concerned may be

directed to appoint him on the vacant post of Demonstrator (Jr.-I) ""as per submissions of vacancy dated 11.12.2015"".

The learned Government Advocate, after taking instructions, submits that the petition is founded on the fundamentally incorrect premise; and the

request as sent to the District Selection Committee in this matter had been for the recommendation of only 4 (four) candidates on the post of

Demonstrator (Jr.-I). In support of his submissions, the learned Government Advocate has placed before the Court the letter dated 26.11.2014

that was sent by the office of the Divisional Officer, North Garo Hills Soil & Water Conservation Division, Resubelpara to the District Selection

Committee, North Garo Hills, Resubelpara. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that in fact, the advertisement related with

this matter carried No. NGH/RS/ADVT-24/2012/25 and was issued on 01.12.2014; and therein, specifically 4 number of vacancies were

advertised for the post in question. Thus, according to learned Government Advocate, recommendations were rightly made and appointments

were rightly offered to the 4 selected candidates and, as per the order of merit, the petitioner was placed in the waiting list. Learned Government

Advocate has further submitted that in fact, the fifth vacancy occurred only on 11.12.2015 after promotion of one of the incumbents but this

vacancy was neither sent to the District Selection Committee nor advertised.

Faced with the aforesaid facts and with the query of the Court as to why the fundamental document concerning this case i.e., the advertisement

in question, is not annexed with this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner responds with the submissions that at the time of filing of this petition,

the petitioner was not having a copy of the advertisement and in relation to the counsel?s queries, the petitioner relied on the documents showing

that there had been 5 number of vacancies. Upon this Court expressing reservations that the petitioner appears to have filed this petition with

concealment of material facts and with distortion of the correct facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted

to withdraw so as to file a fresh petition or he may be permitted to amend the averments. The learned counsel would also submit that in fact, the

petitioner had been making repeated representations but the respondents did not give him any reply, although they were duty bound to do so. The

learned counsel has also attempted to suggest that there might have been some confusion as regards the advertisement and contents thereof in this

matter.

This Court finds all the submissions and suggestions made on behalf of the petitioner unworthy of credence. It is writ large on the face of the

record that this petition has been filed with the bold assertion that 5 number of vacancies were advertised and the petitioner was one of the

applicants thereto. As noticed, in the very initial averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has also asserted that he had applied pursuant to the

advertisement dated 26.11.2014. Obviously, the advertisement was the basic and fundamental document of the entire case of the petitioner which

he chose not to file with the petition. Now, it is noticed from the document shown by the learned Government Advocate that on 26.11.2014, a

request was sent by the Divisional Officer, North Garo Hills Soil & Water Conservation Division, Resubelpara to the Member Secretary, District

Selection Committee for selection and recommendation of 4 number of candidates towards the aforesaid post of Demonstrator (Jr.-I). The

petitioner has though mentioned the reference number of this document but has chosen not to place a copy thereof on record. Further, significant

aspect of the matter remains that the advertisement in question was in fact bearing No. NGH/RS/ADVT-24/2012/25 that was issued on

01.12.2014and therein, distinctly 4 number of vacancies were stated as regards the post of Demonstrator (Jr.-I). The petitioner has chosen not to

state the correct particulars and date of the advertisement although he had appeared in the selection process thereunder. Moreover, even in the

communication dated 11.12.2015 (Annexure - 2) it was distinctly stated by the Divisional Officer that there were 5 vacancies of which, 4 had been

submitted to the Selection Committee and 1 was yet to be submitted.

Thus, it remains beyond the pale of doubt that the selection process in which the petitioner participated had been for the 4 vacancies to the post

of Demonstrator (Jr.-I); and this fact was distinctly known to the petitioner at the time of appearing in the selection process as also at the time of

making the haphazard representations, and even at the time of filing this petition.

In the aforesaid factual position, which remains rather indisputable, the present petition could only be considered as an attempt on the part of

the petition to seek the writ jurisdiction of this Court by concealment of fundamental facts and by misrepresentation of material facts. The prayer

for withdrawal with liberty to file afresh or for amendment of pleadings deserves not to be granted in the present matter for the simple reason that

when a litigant is found wanting in bonafide and is shown to have attempted misleading the Court, no liberty or latitude could be extended to him so

as to continue with the baseless litigation.

The suggestions made before the Court that the respondents had not attend on the representations made by the petitioner have only been

noted to be rejected. Although in case of any genuine grievance, the person is entitled to make a representation, but when such representations

proceed on either non-existent of facts or misstatement of facts, the concerned authorities cannot always be considered obliged to go on attending

on them. Any person could be acceded a right to take a toll on the time of administration by attending on such representations which have no basis

and which stand rather contrary on the record. In the present case, the authorities concerned cannot be faulted if they had chosen to ignore the

baseless representations made by the petitioner.

The substance of the matter remains that 4 number of vacancies were advertised on 01.12.2014 and the petitioner was one of the candidates;

the petitioner participated in the selection process and stood in merit at number 5 and thus, was placed in the waiting list. Even if the fifth vacancy

occurred in the Department after the advertisement and the fact was admitted by the Department, there was no right whatsoever in the petitioner to

seek appointment on this fifth vacancy because of the fundamental reason that the same had not been advertised. The claim of the petitioner

towards the fifth vacancy only because of the reason that he was standing in the waiting list has no legal basis; and on the contrary, it remains trite

that ordinarily the appointments pursuant to a particular advertisement cannot be made beyond the number of vacancies advertised.

For what has been discussed hereinabove, the inevitable result is that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the fifth vacancy remains

fundamentally baseless and is required to be rejected. For the petitioner having made such a claim with concealment of material of facts and with

distortion of correct facts, this petition is required to be dismissed with costs. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner appears to be an

unemployed person, the quantum of costs is restricted at nominal only.

The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) payable by the petitioner to the

respondents.