SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has upheld the stand of Meghalaya Public Service Commission that re-examination should be held for the post of Ayurvedic physician after a candidate approached the Court questioning the Commission’s sudden decision to suspend the list of successful candidates.
MPSC had suspended the list since a board member was related to the candidate.
The petitioner Disaka Elliotte Laloo filed a petition before the Court stating that she has been denied appointment despite being selected for the post by the MPSC.
Laloo stated that she is a qualified Ayurvedacharya (BAMS) and has completed her course in 2004 and has been working as an AYUSH Physician on contract basis under National Rural Health Mission at Laskein CHC, West Jaintia Hills District since April 2007.
According to the petition, the MPSC had issued advertisement on April 26, 2016 inviting applications for recruitment to the various posts including the post of Ayurvedic physician.
The petitioner applied for post and was subsequently ranked second in the select list published by the MPSC.
As the petitioner was declared successful, she was in the hope that the MPSC would soon issue the requisite order appointing her as Ayurvedic physician under the Health and Family Welfare Department.
However, another notification was issued by the MPSC stating that the earlier notification shall be kept in suspended animation until further orders after it received a complaint that one of the interview board members was related to the petitioner.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is no proof that the petitioner is a relative of the member of the interview board with regards to the interview conducted by the MPSC on February 22 this year.
“Thereafter, the MPSC might have received some complaint from different quarters that one of the interview board members is related to the petitioner and on the basis of those letters, an inquiry was conducted, but nothing concrete was established about the relative or relation of the petitioner to a member of the board”, the petition said
According to the petition, thereafter, the MPSC decided to conduct a written examination which is highly illegal and put a stigma against the petitioner.
“ Hence, the written examination supposed to be held again may be set aside,” the counsel said.
The counsel for the MPSC filed an affidavit enclosing an inquiry report and argued that the interview board member S.M. Laloo was related to the petitioner and therefore, when it came to the notice and realization of the board, it decided to hold a written examination.
He further contended that if the petitioner is confident why is she anxious about facing the written examination.
“I have perused the affidavit filed by the MPSC and after going through the affidavit, it appears that there was some mistake and it cannot be said confidently that the board member S.M. Laloo is not related to the petitioner,” the order added.
The Court also perused the confidential file submitted by the counsel for the MPSC and found that the marks given to the different candidates cannot be relied upon safely as it appears that the petitioner got the highest mark, in comparison with her marks to other candidates.
“The Court was also of the opinion that there may be some mistake and error somewhere. Therefore, the remedy left to instill confidence in the minds of the public is to conduct a written examination with proper syllabus,” the Court said.
