ABHAY TEWATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement was published on 05.10.2012 by the respondents for 328 vacancies for the posts of 'Havildar Clerk'. The petitioner herein had applied for the same and was found to be qualified, but no appointment was afforded to him on the ground that he was found low in the merit list prepared state wise. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was however, dismissed on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction as the entire recruitment process had taken place in Jorhat, Dimapur and Shillong. As such, this instant writ petition is before this Court.
(2.) Mr. D.S. Kauntae, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner on having been found qualified after the selection process was expecting his appointment letter but the name of the petitioner was not found in the list of the 156 selected candidates issued by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner on his name not appearing in the merit list, sent a legal notice in the form of a petition cum representation on 05.07.2013, and the respondent No. 2 in reply thereto vide letter dated 18.07.2013, stated therein that the petitioner was not selected being found lower in merit in the respective category. Being aggrieved thereby, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ petition, filed jointly by the petitioner and three other persons whereby the entire selection process was challenged on the main ground that no reservation was made in the advertisement on the basis of region or state, and that the recruitment process was an open rally on an All India Basis.
(3.) The learned counsel contends that during the pendency of the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the records pertaining to the selection had been examined, and on examination, it was revealed that though indicated therein that all available seats were filled, in addition, thereto two other names were included. Learned counsel submits that the case was contested on the issue that the conditions were ambiguous and unclear and the process adopted arbitrary, with the non-disclosure of criteria, which had resulted in the petitioner being deprived of appointment. The learned counsel further contends that in the round of litigation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the respondents had placed heavy reliance on a Policy Circular dated 25.06.2009, which however, was belied inasmuch as, in response to RTI query, the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their reply had clarified that the policy was related to a scheme for recruitment of Constable (GD) and does not pertain to the recruitment of Havildar Clerk. He submits that however, in the present writ petition, the respondents in the affidavit have maintained that the vacancies were distributed as per the MHA Policy and 4 vacancies allotted to the state of Haryana for the post of Havildar Clerk was, General-02, SC-01 and OBC-1. Learned counsel argues that there is no mention about the reservation of 4 posts for the state of Haryana in the advertisement except that the note appended thereto, only stipulated that the distribution of vacancies was to be based on the policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.