Solony Bareh vs State of Meghalaya & Ors

Delay of 124 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment dated 28.05.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 167 of 2015 is sought to be condoned. Normally, delay is condoned provided, no indolence or deliberate act is attributable to the seeker thereof. It is also settled that while considering the cause for condonation, merit of the case has also to be looked into so as to avoid unnecessary continuation of litigative process.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Before considering his explanation for condoning the delay, we have considered the merit of the appeal. Precisely, the background of the case is that, applications were invited for filling up a post of Assistant Professor, amongst the others, petitioner had also applied. Initially, she was not called for the written test because at post graduate level she has scored 53.13% marks when the requirement as per UGC norms to possess minimum 55% marks. Petitioner appears to have projected that as per same UGC norms 5% at graduate and master level viz-a-viz reserved categories is permissible, it appears that in the same background, petitioner had been admitted to written test wherein she has obtained 9 marks out of 25 marks.

Screening Committee comprising of 15 eminent educationists have shortlisted 22 candidates for personal interview, petitioner did not figure amongst them. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 167 of 2015 which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 28.05.2018. Learned Single Judge in the said judgment has noticed that the petitioner had not scored 55% marks at the post graduation level that apart, her M.Phil or Ph.D degree is not in Khasi Literature, therefore, could not be taken into consideration for award of any weightage marks.

The contention of the petitioner is that she was entitled to 20 marks for M.Phil degree. M.Phil degree in folklore not in Khasi, in the written test as per the merit list she had obtained 9 marks whereas, three candidates figuring in the list have top scored i.e., 41, 37 and 36 marks, even though cut off marks was 17 marks for being eligible for personal interview but the person scoring 17 marks would never surpass the candidates having obtained 41, 37 and 36 marks respectively. The petitioner though was not entitled to 20 marks for M.Phil degree, for the sake of arguments, even if her M.Phil would have been in the Khasi Literature still she could get 20 marks more, then would qualify for the interview but in any case, could not surpass the candidates having scored 41, 37 and 36 marks, in written and added weightage points.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that rule of the game could not be changed in the middle of the selection process, same submission is without substance, there is no change in the criteria, what in effect has been done is that the Selection Committee has evolved the criteria based on which merit list has been prepared. It is only when the petitioner is out of race she claim, change in the rules of the game.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked as to whether the personal interview has been held, he was fair enough to state that it has been held and thereafter, it is not to his knowledge whether process has been finalised. Be that as it may, the question for determination is, as to whether the petitioner can get 20 marks for M.Phil which she had done in Folklore not in Khasi Literature, which is a requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, the answer has to be no as also has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment that M.Phil degree is not in Khasi Literature. Taking the overall view of the merit position, the facts and circumstances, in our considered view there is no scope for the petitioner to succeed in the appeal, therefore, to condone the delay and then simply to hear the appeal shall be useless when there is no merit in the appeal, condoning the delay shall be otiose.

The grounds projected in the application for condoning delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory, however, since the cause projected has to be liberally construed there could be scope for giving some liberal construction to the cause but when there is no merit in the appeal, it shall be useless to do so. Application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed as a necessary corollary thereto, appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation.

Disposed of as above.