SWAGATA GHOSH AND SMTI. RAJLAXMI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) (SH) No. 363 of 2011 whereby, the writ petition has been dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 4 is the Managing Committee of Anath Ashram L.P. School, Mawprem, Shillong. The said respondent issued an advertisement on 10.12.2009 published in the newspaper (Annexure -1 of the writ petition) inviting applications from the qualified persons for the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 among others submitted their applications. It appears that more than 30 candidates submitted their applications and a written test was held on 21.03.2010, where one Smti. Rina Paul secured 56.5% (highest marks) in the written test. The respondent No. 5 Smti. Maunita Paul secured 50% (next highest) in the written test and one Roma Paul stood third with 48.5% marks. Those who secured 30% and above marks in the written examination were called for the interview. Since the petitioner No. 1 Smti. Swagata Ghosh secured only 27 marks and the petitioner No. 2 Smti. Rajlaxmi Mishra secured 28 marks, as such, they could not qualify for the interview. In all, 16 candidates were called for the interview, out of which 3(three) candidates found their names in the select list and they were Smti. Rina Paul, Smti. Maunita Dutta and Smti. Roma Paul.

(3.) THE writ petitioners filed the writ petition No. WP (C) (SH) 363 of 2011 challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the ground that another vacancy against which she was appointed was not advertised by the respondent No. 4. After the affidavits were exchanged and hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that though, it is required that the appointment be made against the post advertised only, but in view of the principle of law laid down in : (2010) 2 SCC 637: Rakhi Ray and others versus High Court of Delhi and others, and : (1996) 4 SCC 319: Prem Singh and others versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others; in exceptional cases another anticipated vacancy could have been filed by the same selection process on the basis of the policy decision taken in this regard. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge; this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners.