2024:MLHC:960
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 226 of 2017
Date of Decision: 28.10.2024
1. Smti. Mimie Thina D. Arengh,
Near Balading Club,
Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2. Smti. Maria Grecitha Sangma,
Near Wadanang Baptiste Church,
Wadanang, Tura, West Garo Hills
…… Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Department of Education, Shillong.
2. Commissioner & Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Education
Department, Meghalaya Shillong.
3. Meghalaya Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Chairperson, Shillong
Meghalaya.
4. The Acting Chairperson Meghalaya
Public Service Commission, Shillong.
5. The Secretary,
1
2024:MLHC:960
Meghalaya Public Service Commission,
Shillong.
6. Smti. Bharti B Sangma (Expert)
Lady Keene College, Shillong.
7. Runavallerie N. Sangma,
Tura Government College, Tura,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
8. Rhinkle Merong Marak,
Williamnagar Government College,
Williamnagar
East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
9. Porthyna Rangsa Marak,
Tura Government College, Tura
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
10. Sengrik Manda Sangma,
Captain Williamson Memorial
Government College, Baghmara,
South Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
11. Christilla A Sangma,
Tura Government College, Tura
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
12. Chanang D Momin,
Captain Williamson Memorial
Government College, Baghmara
South Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
13. Peary Dokgre Marak,
Williamnagar Government College,
Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2
2024:MLHC:960
14. Bilnang K Sangma,
Williamnagar Government College,
Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District
Meghalaya.
15. Norime R Marak,
Captain Williamson Memorial
Government College, Baghmara
South Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
…… Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl.Sr.GA. for R 1&2
Mr. B. Khyriem, Adv. for R 3-5.
Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Adv. for R 6.
Mr. P. Nongbri, Adv. for R 7 & 11.
Mr. A. Joshi, Adv. for R 8-10, 12-15.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
J U D G M E N T
1. In response to an advertisement No. MPSC/ADVT-38/1/2014-
2015/50, dated Shillong the 24th March, 2015 (Annexure-4 of this
petition) whereby, inter alia, applications were invited for filing up of
3
2024:MLHC:960
10(ten) posts of Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges of
Meghalaya, the petitioners being eligible for the said posts in terms of
qualifications etc, had applied for being considered for the same.
2. In due course, the petitioners being allotted Roll Nos. 00007
and 00008 respectively were called for the screening test which was
conducted on 19.03.2016 and were amongst the candidates who were
declared successful in the same.
3. The final leg of the entire selection process is the personal
interview conducted on the 26th and 27th May, 2016, for which the
petitioners were called to appear for the same on the 26th May, 2016.
4. Both the petitioners appeared for the personal interview, the
Board consisting of four members, three of which were members of the
Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) and Smti. Bharti B.
Sangma, the respondent No. 6 herein was also included in such Board as
an expert member.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that soon after the said person
interview, they came to know that the expert member of the Interview
Board is actually not a qualified person in the specialised field and
4
2024:MLHC:960
accordingly, a verbal protest was made by the petitioners to the
Chairperson, MPSC who has assured that the matter will be looked into,
however, when there was no response, the petitioners then lodged a
written protest on 29.06.2016 through the MPSC Cell Tura.
6. However, vide Notification No. MPSC/D-3/2014-2015/267
dated Shillong, the 30.05.2016 (Annexure-8 of this petition), the result of
the interview for the post of Lecturer in Garo in Government Colleges
was published by the MPSC and the respondent Nos. 7 to 15 herein were
declared successful and their names were recommended for appointment
as such. The names of the petitioners did not figure in the list of
successful candidates.
7. Being aggrieved by such an outcome, the petitioners have
therefore approached this Court with this instant application under Article
226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside and quash the
said Notification No. MPSC/D-3/2014-2015/267 dated Shillong, the
30.05.2016 as well as the subsequent appointment order No.
EDN.2436/2004/389 dated Shillong, the 27.02.2017 (Annexure-9 of this
petition) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
5
2024:MLHC:960
Meghalaya in the Education Department and for direction for a fresh
interview of the candidates to be conducted.
8. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly
urged on the main contention that is, that the respondent No. 6 not being
a qualified person to be appointed as an expert member in the Interview
Board to aid and advise the Board as to the competency of the
Interviewees, including the petitioners herein as far as the subject matter
of Garo is concerned, therefore, her presence in the said Interview Board
has vitiated the entire proceedings and has rendered the same to be illegal
and arbitrary, the results emanating as a consequence of the process
undertaken by such Interview Board are accordingly invalid.
9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the fact of the
matter is that the respondent No. 6 is not even holding a Master Degree
in Garo language whereas, the petitioners are holders of a Master Degree
in Garo language, as such, cannot be imagined that a person of the
qualification as that of the respondent No. 6 can be part of the Interview
Board and that too, as a domain expert to test the competency of the
Interviewees.
6
2024:MLHC:960
10. The learned counsel has also refuted the contention of the
respondent No. 6, when in her affidavit-in-opposition, she has stated that
she had been teaching Garo in the Lady Keane Girls College since 1984,
and has also been deputed by the Government to sit as an expert adviser
to assist the MPSC at the interview for recruitment to the post of
Lecturers in Garo in Government Colleges, apparently based on her
experience of as many as 32(thirty-two) years in teaching the subject,
which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such experience
would in no way qualify her to be an expert in Garo without the
necessary qualifications.
11. The selection process (Interview) being tainted by
arbitrariness and casualness, vis-à-vis, the qualification of the respondent
No. 6 as an expert member, the entire selection process is therefore liable
to be set aside and the respondent/MPSC be directed to conduct fresh
interview, submits the learned counsel.
12. Mr. B. Khyriem, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3-
5/MPSC in his argument, has submitted that the practice adopted by the
MPSC for empanelment of an expert member in an Interview Board is to
request the department concerned to depute such expert member. The
7
2024:MLHC:960
MPSC has no role and power to question the qualification of such expert
member deputed by the department. However, normally, it is a
conventional practice that whenever the MPSC would request for an
expert member or adviser, the department concerned would depute a
senior Lecturer or Head of Department associated with the subject, which
was done so in this case.
13. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA in his argument on
behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the
respondent No. 6 has been selected in her service way back in the year
1984 when her appointment in the post of Lecturer in Garo at Lady
Keane Girls College, Shillong was approved by the Director of Public
Instructions, Meghalaya and she was serving in the said post as long as
32(thirty-two) years or so.
14. The learned Addl. Sr. GA has further submitted that pursuant
to a request made by the under Secretary, MPSC vide letter dated
09.05.2016 for deputation of a suitable officer as an expert adviser for the
interview to be held on 26th and 27th May, 2016 for the post of Lecturer in
Garo in Government Colleges, the Director of Higher and Technical
Education, Meghalaya, Shillong, in response thereto had found it fit to
8
2024:MLHC:960
recommend the name of the respondent No. 6, who was accordingly
empanelled as such. Therefore, following convention and precedent in
this regard, the empanelment of the respondent No. 6 in the said
Interview Board cannot be questioned.
15. As far as the stand of the respondent No. 6 is concerned, Mrs.
N.G. Shylla, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent No. 6
holds a post graduate degree in M.A (Economics), however, in her degree
course, she had passed the same with Garo as one of the subjects. On
being recommended by the Governing Body of the Lady Keane Girls
College to be appointed as a Lecturer in Garo in the said college, and on
approval of the same by the Director of Public Instruction vide related
order dated 24.03.1984, the respondent No. 6 was accordingly appointed
as such.
16. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in the
1980’s there was no Garo subject taught at the post graduate level. It was
only in the year 1986 that the Garo department was introduced in the
North Eastern Hills University (NEHU), Tura Campus, and as such, it
cannot be said that the respondent No. 6 is not qualified to teach Garo at
the relevant point of time. At the time when she was deputed as the
9
2024:MLHC:960
expert adviser, she has already put in about 32(thirty-two) years of
service and the experience and knowledge accumulated in the subject,
cannot be discounted. Being found fit to be empanelled as an expert
adviser, the petitioners have no grounds whatsoever to challenge her
qualification.
17. As far as the respondent Nos. 7 & 11 are concerned, Mr. P.
Nongbri, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, has at the outset,
challenge the maintainability of this petition by contending that the same
is barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, inasmuch as, the
petitioners having participated in the entire selection process and being
declared unsuccessful, they cannot make a U-Turn and challenge the
selection process at this point of time. Their representation dated
29.06.2016 filed before the MPSC after the declaration of results cannot
be entertained, and the same was rightly rejected by the authorities
concerned.
18. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent
Nos. 7 & 11 respectively having participated in the selection process with
no objection as to their qualifications or eligibility, being declared
successful after the result of the selection process have been declared,
10
2024:MLHC:960
and also having been appointed in their respective capacity as Lecturer in
Garo in the Tura Government College, West Garo Hills District and
further having put in more than 8(eight) years of service, at this stage, it
may not be proper to unsettle a settled position as that would be against
public interest.
19. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case of
the parties herein, as is apparent, the only grievance of the petitioners is
that the respondent No. 6 not being qualified to be empanelled as an
expert adviser, her participation in the Interview Board has vitiated the
selection process which has caused prejudice to the petitioners.
20. However, on an observation of the materials on record as well
as on consideration of the pleadings before this Court, what can be
understood is that the respondent No. 6 being a Lecturer in Garo in Lady
Keane Girls College since the year 1984 has not been disputed by any of
the parties herein including the petitioners.
21. That the circumstances under which the respondent No. 6 was
appointed as Lecturer in Garo in the year 1984, even though, she was
only having Garo as one of the subjects in the degree course, the fact that
11
2024:MLHC:960
at the relevant period, there was no post graduate studies in Garo offered
by NEHU or any University for that matter, it stands to reason that the
qualification of the respondent No. 6 to teach Garo language in the said
college is found justified.
22. Again, the fact that the respondent No. 6 has had about 32
years’ experience in teaching the subject, surely, if she cannot be
considered an expert in the same, then nobody can. That the Education
Department has found her to be fit to be recommended as an expert
adviser for the said Interview Board, such wisdom cannot be questioned
by this Court or anyone.
23. On such observations made by this Court, the qualification of
the respondent No. 6 has created no doubt as to her competency to be
appointed as such expert adviser. Accordingly, the selection process in
question has been conducted in a fair and proper manner, the allegation
against the same by the petitioners is not found acceptable by this Court.
24. Only on this ground alone, this Court is convinced that the
petitioners have not been able to make out a case for disturbing the
12
2024:MLHC:960
results of the selection process and the appointments of the private
respondents herein cannot be disturbed at this point of time.
25. This petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits and
is hereby disposed of. No costs.
Judge
13