SALJONG K MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, 3 (three) petitioners namely, (1) Shri Saljong K. Marak, (2) Shri Senforth K. Momin and (3) Shri Coleman K. Marak sought for an appropriate direction to the respondents and, for quashing the impugned appointment orders dated 21/6/2000 and 14/12/2000 as in Annexure 4 & 5 respectively to the writ petition so far it relates to the apointment of the respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 to the post of junior cadre of the Meghalaya Civil Services, hereinafter referred to as MCS, coupled with a prayer for a direction to the State respondents to appoint these peititoners in the said posts in terms of the Merit list dt 7.1.2000 and, reservation policy dated 12.1.1972 as seen in the document marked as Annexure-1 to the writ petition by contending inter alia, that the petitioners are the bona fide citizens of India by birth and they belong to Scheduled Tribe (Garo community of the State of Meghalaya) and, they have been duly selected for their appointment to the post of MCS after they had appeared in the written and viva voce tests conducted by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission in response to the related adverisement made by the authority concerned and, in terms of the merit list dated 7.1.2000, the petitoners were place at SI. Nos. 26, 27 & 29 respectively and whereas, the private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were placed at SI. Nos. 28, 30 and 46 respectively. However, those private respondents Nos. 4, 5 & 6 have already been given appointment to the post of MCS vide, appointment orders dated 21/6/2000 and 14/12/2000 as seen in the documents marked as Annexures 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition thus, violating the reservation policy as seen in the document marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition as well as accepted principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. This statement is supported by Mr V.K. Jindal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned senior counsel also contended that as per said memorandum as in Annexure-1, there shall be a reservation of 40% of the vacancies in favour of the Khasis and Jaintias; there shall be a reservation of 40% of the vaccaices in favour of Garos which was not followed and adopted by the State respondents while affording the appointment to these private respondents and, as such, it is a clear case of discrimination and, as such, the action of the respondents-State is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is contested by the State respondents by contending inter alia, that apart from the usual reservation policy, the appointment to service shall be subject to fulfilment on conditions as the appointing authority may from time to time prescribe in the interest of public service. Mr C.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents supported all the contentions made in the affidavit-in-oposition of the State respondents.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties concerned at a length and also perused the available materials on record. After proper application of my mind in this matter, I am of the view that the action of the State respondents towards these petitioners amounts to discrimination and the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons: