Editor,
I am very concerned with the news, ‘HC For Time Bound Recruitment To Fill Up Vacancies In NEIGRIHMS’ (ST June 27, 2018). I am also shocked to learn that such malpractices are going on in the recruitment process of NEIGRIHMS. On reading the news I checked the neigrihms website to authenticate the news, as I found it hard to believe that a central government institute can go wrong in its recruitment policies. I found two advertisements for faculty recruitment on regular basis in May, 2017(ADVERTISEMENT NO.NEIGR-E.1II19/2004/Pt.XVI) and June 2017 (ADVERTISEMENT NO.NEIGR-E.II129/2009/Pt. dated 06/07/2017) .The Hon’ble High Court didn’t mention or might have missed the point of the experience allowed for the May notification was up to Dec, 2017(seven months from the date of advertisement) and for the July advertisement experience allowed till August, 2017.
There is clear discrepancy in allowing the experience, since being a prime central institute they are bound to follow TRANSPARENT rules and regulations for recruitment to give fair chances to all candidates of Northeast and all over India. Another incident during the interview process was that the Institute did not adhere to DOPT guidelines (available in the website) which says advertisement to interview should be completed within 6 months. In this case they took one year. The order was sent to NEIGRIHMS in March 2017 but they did not incorporate this order in the May 2017 advertisement, but did so in the July 2017 advertisement – this is a clear case of corruption and calls for enquiry.
The point is that many more candidates would have been eligible in the last 6 months. If there was some delay due to technical reasons then an amendment could have been issued to ask for extra candidates who can be eligible in the intervening period. But because of vested interest of those in authority it was not done. One of the non-eligible candidates appealed to the Hon’ble High Court and got permission to attend the interview. Likewise few more candidates who had the same problem were not allowed to appear in the interview by the Institute, because they did not go to court. This discrepancy shows that there are some vested interests at work to make only some candidates eligible in the first notification ( May,2017) I request the Union Health Minister to set up an enquiry committee to investigate the matter as such malpractices will destroy the Institute and demoralize the eligible candidates who have been thwarted from appearing for the interview.
I also request the media to investigate the matter and hold the NEIGRIHMS authorities answerable All information is available in the NEIGRIHMS website for perusal.
Yours etc.,
B Syiemlieh,
Shillong-9
‘Give and take policy’
Editor,
The State of Meghalaya, as is well known was carved out of the erstwhile State of Assam first in 1970 as an autonomous state. It was in 1972 that Meghalaya became a full- fledged State with the three districts of Garo, Khasi and Jaintia Hills carved out of Assam. At the time when the State was provisionally classed as an ‘autonomous’ state it should have established clear boundaries between the Government of Assam and the Government of a new Autonomous State of Meghalaya. In this period people of the adjoining areas predominantly inhabited by Garo, Khasi and Jaintia communities did not know for sure where their villages finally belonged to since there are many villages which partly fall in the new State of Meghalaya while the remaining half remained with Assam. This confusion is created due to absence of formal survey and mapping during the process of granting statehood which was not according to the original claims of Meghalaya’s leaders but understandably according to the wishes and policies of the central government and the State of Assam.
The new State of Meghalaya was too busy establishing administrative set-ups to suit the needs and to fulfill the aspirations of the indigenous people of Meghalaya. Ultimately many tribal dominated villages were left out and forced to remain with Assam despite their contributions in various ways to support the separate state demands Years have passed by without any solution to this boundary dispute between the two states thereby giving more scope to intensify the claims and counter-claims by the respective Governments even while the people settling in these contested areas are left without administration by either state. In such a situation, a suggestion thrown open by a seasoned political leader from the ruling party, Mr Prestone Tynsong, Deputy Chief Minister of Meghalaya about a policy of give and take, is a thought provoking idea which is perhaps aimed at solving the real issue with pragmatism, if the same idea is reciprocated by their counterpart in Assam. This idea of conflict resolution, if sincerely pursued will stop further misunderstandings and unnecessary quarrels between the two states leading sometimes even to violence and killing of citizens of both states who are separated by the legacy of divide and rule policy of the political parties be it regional or national. Every time elections come the border issue crops up but is forgotten soon after.
The boundary dispute needs to be resolved once and for all by the present government.
Yours etc.,
- S. Sangma
Shillong-1