SHILLONG, April 6: The High Court of Meghalaya has stayed all recruitment processes of the state government until a roster system is put in place.
Hearing a writ petition filed by one Zanera R Marak and others, a two-judge bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh described the absence of a roster system as a “deplorable state of affairs, which leaves open possibilities of nepotism and arbitrariness and worse forms of subversions”.
“In view of such deplorable state of affairs…the further recruitment processes for all posts in the state will remain stayed in the sense that no further appointments will be made until the roster system is put in place,” the court ordered.
The court said it is alarming that despite 50 years of the formation of the state and 50 years of reservation in state government jobs, there is no roster system yet.
“Indeed, this bench was constrained to raise a question in course of a recent matter as to how the reservation policy could be implemented without a roster. It is surprising that there are bureaucrats in place and there have been bureaucrats for the last 50 years and it did not dawn on any one of them to ensure that the roster system was put in place before the reservation policy could be appropriately implemented,” the court said.
It directed that rosters are prepared in respect of all posts whereupon, after applying the reservation policy, future recruitment can be conducted by adhering to the ratio of reservation. The court said this will apply across state government agencies and instrumentalities in the state wherever the reservation policy is in vogue.
The court directed that a copy of its order must be reached to the Chief Secretary in the course of the day so the latter can indicate the steps taken when the matter appears next.
“This aspect of the matter will be considered as suo motu public interest litigation. Though it is the state’s case that the prevailing reservation policy applied to the recruitment process pertaining to the present matter that was initiated in 2006 and completed in 2009, even the advertisement did not indicate how many posts were for reserved candidates and how many for others,” the court said.
There does not appear to be any list of employees in each post relevant for the purpose of reservation. Upon inquiry, it is discovered that it is the same distressing feature in the matter of recruitments in this High Court over the last decade of its existence, it said.
“Learned Advocate-General, who is present in court, acknowledges that reservation cannot be implemented without a roster. It is also noticed that several of the notifications and official memoranda…relied upon by the parties in the present matter, are littered with mistakes; mistakes that should not have happened if proper mind was applied to the matters in issue…
“These documents have also been disclosed by the parties mindlessly without indicating the mistakes in the documents. It will be open to the state to use a supplementary affidavit to justify the appointment of 12 candidates in tranches and why someone was appointed ahead of the others on account of the reservation policy or otherwise,” the court said.
It directed that a supplementary affidavit is filed within a week and a rejoinder thereto may be filed before the matter is taken up on April 20.
