AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W. Diengdoh, J
Heard Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel for the appellants, who has submitted that the appellants as petitioners have preferred a writ petition before this Court, being WP(C) No. 394 of 2025. The appellants as petitioners being aggrieved by an advertisement bearing Advt. No. 10/2025 dated 26th May, 2025 and the Notification No. MPSC/EX-C/61/2025/9 dated 28th August, 2025 being the result published by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC), pursuant to the said advertisement.
It is the submission of the learned counsel that the appellants have been appointed as A.H. & Veterinary Officers on contract basis in the Government of Meghalaya, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department. There was an advertisement floated on 26.05.2025 by the MPSC, calling up for filling up of 51 posts of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officers. The appellants having the requisite qualification have equally responded to the said advertisement and have filed their application. However, after the interview was conducted and the process completed, the authority has published the result on 28.08.2025, all the appellants herein being found unsuccessful.
As submitted, the learned counsel has pointed out that the whole selection process was flawed and marked by favoritism and nepotism, inasmuch as, the said selection process has not been conducted in accordance with the rules and set principles of service law.
The learned counsel has led this Court to the relevant rules called the Meghalaya Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service Rules, 2000 wherein at Rule 7-Method of Recruitment, Sub-Rule 5 prescribes that appointment to any post in Grade II (Junior) shall be made by direct recruitment on the result of the examination/interview conducted by the Commission. Rule 11 prescribes the method of direct recruitment which calls for conduct of written examination and personal interview, the result of which a candidate would secure will be determined by the aggregate marks obtained.
The learned counsel has submitted that the authority by conducting only an interview for filling of up the said 51 posts, there is always the possibility of the process not being fair, as such, the appellants being discriminated, has approached this Court for declaring the whole selection process as null and void.
The learned counsel has further submitted that when the petition was moved before the learned Single Judge of this Court, prayer was made for an order of status quo, initially, the same was passed vide order dated 22.09.2025 in the said WP(C) No. 394 of 2025 and the matter was fixed for further hearing on the prayer for interim relief.
However, on the next date of hearing on the interim prayer that is, on 25.09.2025, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and without passing a reasoned order, that is, by noting only the submission of the learned AAG for the State respondent has passed the impugned order to the extent that “the status quo order passed earlier shall not continue”.
That the whole selection process being flawed and illegal, pending hearing of the petition, the order of status quo ought to have been passed, for, if in the meantime, the successful candidates assumed charge of their respective posts, the prayer made in the writ petition would become infructuous. It is therefore prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 be set aside or modified suitably and further, that the respondent be directed not to give any appointment to the candidates, who have been declared successful vide the said publication of result dated 28.08.2025.
Mrs. T. Yangi. B, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2, has refuted the allegation made and have maintained that the process of advertisement have been carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the said Rules of 2000, and the fact that Rule 7(5) prescribed for the method of recruitment which could be by way of an examination or interview to be conducted by the Commission (MPSC), that the said recruitment was resorted to only by way of conduct of the interview, the said Rule has not been violated. It is prayed that this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected.
Mr. K. Paul, learned Sr. counsel/Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3/MPSC, in his counter, has submitted that the appellants knowing fully well the contents and requirement set out in the said advertisement dated 26.05.2025, wherein at para 6.1 under the heading “Method of Selection”, it has been clearly stipulated that “the Commission will adopt recruitment through direct interview as informed by Department vide L.No.VET(E).87/2014/Pt/130 Dtd. 29-04-2025”, have taken part in the said selection process and having failed to be selected or to be found successful, their action by coming before this Court assailing the issuance of the said advertisement and the result thereof speaks volume about their conduct in which the principle of estoppel would be applicable in their case.
The second contention of the learned Sr. counsel is that by virtue of the said selection process and the result published, 32 candidates have been declared successful and they have therefore acquired a right to be appointed to the relevant post, however, they have not been impleaded in these proceedings, and any order passed which would negatively affect them, would be termed as a violation of their rights. As such, though the appellants can agitate their case before this Court, any order passed in the absence of the said 51 candidates, would not stand the scrutiny of law. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is therefore well-thought of and the same may not be disturbed at this point of time, further submits the learned Sr. counsel.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, however, at this juncture, we find that it would be too premature to come to a decision as far as the merits of the case of the appellants/petitioners is concerned. The fact remains that there are other necessary parties to the lis which, as pointed out by Mr. Paul are required to be brought before this Court before any adverse order, even in the form of a status quo order is passed against them.
On this premise, adopting the principle of natural justice to be followed, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants would first implead the said necessary parties, and on their appearance before the Court, the matter can be finally heard out.
Accordingly, we find no merits in this appeal. The impugned order deserves no disturbance, the same is hereby maintained.
The appellants may proceed with the matter before the learned Single Judge. However, we made it clear that the fate of the impugned selection process, the advertisement and the result thereof, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. No costs.