Jollin Andrea Shylla vs State Of Meghalaya

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had completed her Doctorate in Zoology and during the filing of the instant writ petition was pursuing her Post-Doctoral Research Project in Science and Engineering Research (SERB) under the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India in St. Anthony's College, Shillong.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.02.2016, issued by the respondent No. 4, advertising for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, the petitioner applied for the same and was successful. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 had put a condition that the petitioner should first resign from the ongoing Project which she was engaged in, before joining the post. However, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 4 to first afford her appointment before she submitted her resignation from the Project. The respondent No. 4, then by communication dated 3rd February, 2016 expressed their regret to appoint the petitioner against the post of Assistant Professor Zoology in view of the condition that has been put forth by the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

I have heard Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5.

Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner had qualified, there was no impediment for the respondent No. 4 to appoint her to the post, inasmuch as the petitioner had undertaken to submit her resignation from the Project after the appointment order was issued. He submits that the letter by which the appointment was denied was arbitrary and has caused wrongful deprivation of meaningful employment to the petitioner. He further submits that the action of the respondent being arbitrary and unreasonable, the respondent No.4 was liable to be directed to consider the writ petitioner for immediate appointment to the said post. He further submits that till date the post is vacant and has not been filled up in any manner.

Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 and 3 submits that as the petitioner was pursuing her Post- Doctoral Research under the Govt. of India, supporting documents like NOC certificate and the terms and condition thereof, were necessary to be examined at the time of appointment which the petitioner could not produce, which led to her not being appointed by the Respondent No.4. He further submits that the respondent No. 4, was within its rights to refuse appointment to the writ petitioner, inasmuch as, she could not submit the certificates from the Ministry of Human Resource Development and as such, the decision of the respondent No. 4 to recommend the name of the second candidate in the merit list for appointment was not arbitrary. He lastly submits that the writ petitioner by her own conduct had led to her not being appointed and as such, the writ petition deserved no consideration and should be dismissed.

Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and 5 submits that the respondent No. 4 after noticing the full-time engagement of the petitioner in the above Post-Doctoral Project, as disclosed at a later stage, had requested her to furnish the following documents.

(i) N.O.C from her project funding body allowing her to surrender her Post-Doctoral Research,

(ii) N.O.C from her host institution i.e., (St. Anthony's College) allowing her to discontinue her project and;

(iii) Financial Clearance from appropriate authorities with regard to her MRP.

He further submits that the respondent college had also categorically turned down her request for transferring her Post-Doctoral Research project to the respondent college due to lack of space and infrastructure, which would affect the smooth administration of the college and other activities. He submits that the petitioner was well aware of these conditions and was informed accordingly, but the writ petitioner instead of providing the above requirements and documents, especially the fact the she had to surrender the Project as directed, submitted the letter dated 17.10.2016 asserting that her appointment be given before she surrendered the project. He asserts that the writ petitioner even before appointment, or becoming an employee in the respondent college, had already imposed the condition that the termination of such project, as well as financial clearance, would be provided only after she was issued the appointment letter, which was unacceptable.

Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel submits that these conditions as put forward by the writ petitioner were not acceptable, considering the fact that she was yet to be appointed and that such type of appointment was not permissible, inasmuch as, there was no guarantee that the writ petitioner once appointed for appointment would discontinue the research project and that further the respondent college never allowed any teaching faculty member to pursue Post-Doctoral Research while holding a permanent sanctioned post. He also submits that the condition imposed by the writ petitioner if accepted by the respondent college would lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated teaching faculty in the college apart from affecting the regular classes and functioning of the college. He submits that in these circumstances, the respondent college was constrained to reject her candidature, in view of the stated condition as above noted.

He lastly submits, that the rights of the petitioner, having not been violated in any manner the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties considered their submissions and examined the materials on record. The points in issue that arise for consideration in the writ petition, are whether the writ petitioner possesses any vested right to seek mandamus for her appointment, and whether the respondent No. 4 on having selected the writ petitioner, were within their rights to refuse the appointment, notwithstanding the conditions put forth by the petitioner. It is undisputed that as on date, the said post of the Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology in St. Mary's College, Shillong is still vacant and no appointment was made to the post due to pendency of the writ petition.

Firstly, it is noted that the selection was conducted and concluded in 2016, and as 3 years have since elapsed, the writ petitioner cannot claim by right to be appointed to the post on the basis of a selection conducted 3 years ago. Secondly, it is also noted that the conditions so put forth by the writ petitioner to the respondent college cannot be said to be justified or reasonable in the backdrop of the facts and requirements of the Respondent No. 4 college, as discussed above, and as such the respondent college cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner in denying appointment.

However, looking into the entire facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, and as the writ petitioner has since completed her Doctorate in Zoology, it is directed that the respondent college shall afford one final opportunity to the writ petitioner to represent before the respondent No. 4 college for consideration of her appointment to the said post. On consideration thereof, the respondent college is at liberty to take any decision, that is, whether it is possible to appoint the petitioner against the said vacant post or a fresh advertisement be called, keeping in mind the requirements and necessity and for the well-being and benefit of the college. Considering the fact that due to the pendency of the litigation the students have been deprived of a faculty member for the last 3(three) years, the writ petitioner is directed to submit her representation within one-week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and the respondent No. 4 college shall thereafter consider the same within a period of three weeks' thereafter and pass a decision thereon.

With the above noted directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.