AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R.Sen, J
Heard Mr. H. Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA for the respondents No. 1-4. Mr. P.N.Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5-15, 18-22, 24, 26-31, 33-84, Mr. S.Wahlang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 23 are present who did not submit anything.
Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"The brief fact of the case is that, the Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Khasi Hills District (Respondent No. 3) vide Memo. No. DSC. 1/2006/212 dt. 29.05.2012 Cum Typist for the different departments in the East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. In response to the Advertisement, your humble petitioner being qualified applied for the post of LDA cum Typist and the Petitioner appeared for the Written Examination under Roll No. 2284 and was declared pass. After passing the Written Examination as well as the Typing Test, the Petitioner was called for Personal Interview on 14th Nov 2014. After receiving the Call Letter, the Petitioner duly appeared for her Personal Interview and then the Final Result of the examination for the post of LDA cum Typist was declared on 15th Dec 2014. But the Petitioner was not selected in personal interview, which is very strange and questionable, because the Petitioner had passed Written Examination and the Typing Test and not only that, the petitioner had past experience of the post. The Petitioner submits that the respondents, who have secured either equal typing speed of 27 words per minute or less than the petitioner and some are below speed of 30 words per minute. The details of the Roll No. 5 to 84 The aforesaid illegality of Selection & Appointment of the Private Respondents no. 5 to 84 to the post of LDA cum Typist was also published in local daily newspaper, Mawphor on 16th March 2015. However, after coming to know about the Final Result, on 23.03.2015, the Petitioner through RTI sought for the following documents to check & compare the marks :-
(i) Certified copies of the written, typing and personal interview marks obtained by the candidates who are selected for the post of LDA cum typist.
(ii) Certified copies of the written, typing and personal interview marks obtained by humble applicant.
The aforesaid documents were denied and therefore, the Petitioner filed an appeal dt. 18th May 2015 before the authority to direct the PIO District Selection Board, Shillong to provide above information, but the same was not considered.
That the petitioner humbly submits that there are several irregularities in the selection process, because the Respondents have given appointment to the Private Respondent No. 5 to 84, who did not qualified in Typing Test and obviously not qualified for Personal Interview, but the petitioner qualified in Typing test but was not selected for the post of LDA cum Typist. Therefore, the appointment of the Private Respondents vide Impugned Final Result dt. 15th Dec 2014 are highly arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal and is liable to be set aside and quashed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had qualified for the written examination and thereafter she was called for the typing test and then also called for personal interview. Learned counsel also gave the brief facts of the case, the same is reproduced herein below:
"1. The petitioner is a graduate and has experience of Stenography and Computer Typing and she has already worked in temporary post as Senior Clerk Steno in C.B.I and A.C.B.
On 29.05.2012, the Respondent No. 3 advertised unspecified numbers of the posts of L.D.A. cum Typist and the Selection Process consisted of 3 Tests, namely :-
(i) Written Test.............(Petitioner appeared)
(ii )Typing Test.............(Petitioner appeared).
(iii) Personal Interview.....(Petitioner appeared).
On the basis of the results of Written Examination and Typing Test, the Petitioner was called for Personal Interview vide letter dt. 14.11.2014 ANNEXURE-9 and she appeared for Personal Interview on 27.11.2014.
The final result was declared on 15.12.2014 but the petitioner was not selected and therefore, the Petitioner applied for Score Sheets of all candidates under R.T.I, but it was denied. Therefore, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the higher authority, only then the Respondent authority supplied the Score Sheets and say that the petitioner secured 23 marks in Typing Test, which is absolutely wrong. Because after passing the
Written Test and Typing Test, the petitioner was called for final test/Personal Interview on 14.11.2014 vide Annexure-9, and it shows that the Petitioner had passed in Typing Test, otherwise how she was called for Personnel Interview.
The Private Respondents secured less speed then the Petitioner, but they were selected:-
Respondents
Speed w.p.m
Names
No.6.
19
Smti Daraplang Shisha Nongbri.
No.7.
22
Shri Batkupar Shullai
No.8.
18
Smti Ibarilin Shangdiar
No. 13.
16
Elvira Kmenhun Diengdoh
No.15.
16
Smti Mana Corianda Kharhunai
No.16.
22
Shri Rishanlang Dkhar
No. 17.
13
Shri Obesion Manner
No. 19.
18
Shri Pynskhem Daryll Lynshiang
No. 21.
19
Smti Elsie Deadon Lyngdoh
No. 22.
18
Shri Wandamanhi Passah
No. 25.
21
Smti Phiba Pynhun Jyrwa
No. 26.
13
Smti Dakerlang Kharrngi
No. 27.
16
Smti Linda Diengdoh
No. 28.
19
Shri Samborlang Thangkhiew
No. 29.
16
Shri Bantei Hadrian Mukhim
No. 30.
17
Smti Lovienia Warjari
No. 31.
21
Smti Ibanylla Kharbuli
No. 33.
20
Shri Beuty Mary Sohkhlet
No. 35.
10
Smti Careenhea Weilabiang Dkhar
No. 36.
21
Shri Bawankmenlang S. Kharshiing
No. 37.
22
Shri Gordon Teibok Sohtun
No. 38.
22
Smti Bakyntu Skhembill
No. 40.
8
Smti Gordelia Ropmay
No. 41.
20
Shri Sunshine Diengdoh
No. 42.
18
Shri Khrawbok Kharkongor
No. 43.
20
Smti Ibashuwa Jareen Massar
No. 44.
20
Shri Willybert Donbok Kharmih
No. 45.
22
Smti Carmelia B. Lyngdoh
No. 46.
18
Smti Wanshembha Kharmalki
No. 47.
17
Smti Geraldine Luccile Hay Mukhim
No. 48.
12
Shri Benison Kharsyntiew
No. 49.
11
Smti Alvareen Diengdoh
No. 51.
8
Shri Barikpar Lyngdoh
No. 52
18
Smti Eldina Mawa
No. 53.
22
Shri Donhilari Kharmujai
No. 56
17
Smti Kerrimika Sumer Lyngdoh Talang
No. 57.
18
Shri Dean Bryan Rani
No. 58.
10
Shri Donald Pynshngainlang Swer
No. 59.
20
Smti Saralin Khyrim Basin Lakhra
No. 60.
11
Shri Bethany Aroma Nongkynrih
No. 62.
16
Smti Baphinda Ribha Lynrah
No. 63.
22
Shri Richmond Marbaniang
No. 66.
22
Shri Cuthbert Joplang Nongkhlaw
No. 69.
21
Smti Easterbel Kharjana
No. 71.
16
Smti Amit Lyngdoh
No. 74
14
Smti Baiabhalin Nonghuloo
No. 75.
20
Smti Ridalin Mary Dhar
No. 76.
21
Smti Leonora Rumnong
No. 78.
20
Smti Rupanylla Diengdoh
No. 79.
20
Smti Baribha Kurbah
No. 80.
13
Smti Ibamelaai Bareh
No. 81.
17
Shri Eric Donbok Pamthet
No. 82.
21
Smti Bameda Kharbyngar
No. 83.
17
Smti IIarity Nongrum
No. 84.
16
Smti Bitdorlang Siangshai
However, there is new development in the matter Because, the Respondent No. 16 has died and Respondent No. 17 got job in different department and Two posts of LDA Cum Typist are lying vacant from the Same Select List and the petitioner can be accommodated in one of the posts without disturbing the service of Private Respondents No. 40 to 84, since the petitioner appeared all the 3 Tests and is qualified for the post of LDA cum Typist."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that those candidates who got lesser marks in typing test were appointed leaving behind the petitioner though she secured better marks in typing test. He also raised the question that the entire selection was done in a very mismatch manner.
In reply, Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA submitted that she could not be appointed as she was found not qualified in the typing test.
Now, the question before me is that how the other candidates who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the typing test can be appointed. It is a simple principle of equity and justice that while selecting candidates the authority must be fair, but in this case since the petitioner got better marks in typing test than the other appointees who were appointed already which is highly illogical and illegal. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on priority basis and to adjust her in the vacant posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.Nongkhlaw also submitted that the respondent No. 16 has died and respondent No. 17 got a different job, so 2(two) posts of LDA-cum-Typist are lying vacant.
Since injustice has been caused to the petitioner as appeared from the record and submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, petitioner is to be appointed, if other candidate who had already been appointed secured less mark than the petitioner. Let the whole exercise be done within one month from the date of the order as two posts are vacant.
With this observation and direction the matter stands disposed of.