People’s College Scheme
From Our Correspondent
TURA, June 28: In response to Mendipathar MLA Marthon J Sangma’s statement regarding the controversial absorption of teachers under government-sanctioned posts through the People’s College Scheme, social activist and CoMSO adviser Cherian Momin has issued a public counter-statement. He urged the MLA, who also serves as Chairman of the Mendipathar College Governing Body, to support a full, independent, and transparent inquiry into both the teacher absorption process and the DSC appointments, stating that if the MLA’s office believes its actions are lawful and proper, and that there is nothing to hide, such an inquiry should not be resisted.
According to Momin, the representations submitted to the Chief Minister and made public were neither speculative nor politically motivated, as the MLA claimed, but were instead based on verifiable documents, official notifications, service records, and established government procedures. While the MLA’s statement sought to clarify the matter, Momin argued that it instead revealed attempts to deflect scrutiny, distort facts, and intimidate civic voices raising legitimate public-interest concerns.
The activist pointed out that the controversy regarding the absorption of teaching staff at Mendipathar College stemmed from serious procedural violations. He referred to a government notification dated 6 September 2023 and a subsequent order issued on 4 June 2025, both of which clearly outlined the criteria for absorbing eligible staff under the People’s College Scheme.
Among those absorbed was Dingri D. Shira, daughter of the sitting MLA and Governing Body Chairman. Momin said that available records indicate she did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the official notification. Yet, despite this, her name was included in the final list of absorbed staff. He cited clause (c)(i) of the notification, which requires every page of the absorption list to be signed by the Governing Body Secretary—a safeguard meant to ensure institutional transparency and integrity. However, this requirement was not fulfilled in her case, as the list bearing her name was found to be unsigned. Momin argued that this was not a minor clerical lapse, but a serious breach of due process that raised questions of conflict of interest, misuse of position, and potential nepotism, wherein positions intended for deserving candidates appear to have been allotted based on political proximity.
Momin also raised concerns over the exclusion of Subroto G. Marak, a Garo lecturer with an unblemished service record. The MLA’s office claimed that Marak was ineligible due to taking leave during the election period. However, documentary evidence shows that Marak availed Lien leave, not earned leave as alleged. The activist explained that under the Meghalaya Service Rules, which are aligned with the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules of 1972, Lien leave is a recognized category granted with prior approval. It does not amount to resignation unless the individual takes up employment elsewhere with official acceptance or abandons the post, as declared by the appointing authority. He added that denying Marak’s rightful claim to absorption based on seniority and merit, while including a junior candidate reportedly with political connections, raises serious concerns of discrimination, partiality, and breach of public trust.
Further, Momin expressed alarm over the reported appointment of the MLA’s son as a member of the District Selection Committee (DSC) in North Garo Hills. The DSC, being a statutory body responsible for overseeing recruitment to government posts, is expected to function with strict neutrality and full compliance with the Meghalaya Public Service Rules, General Financial Rules, and constitutional norms. The appointment of a sitting MLA’s immediate family member to such a body, he said, not only invites allegations of conflict of interest but also undermines the credibility of the entire recruitment process.
He remarked that at a time when thousands of qualified and deserving youth are struggling to find fair opportunities, the repeated placement of the MLA’s own family members in influential and decision-making positions is not only unethical but also an affront to the principles of transparency, accountability, and meritocracy. Momin stressed that the issue demands immediate scrutiny under the constitutional and statutory framework, including Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. He also cited the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, which allows investigation into corruption and abuse of office for personal or family gain; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly Sections 7 and 13, which prohibit misuse of position for undue advantage; the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which bar public servants from any conduct that suggests a conflict of interest; and Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows disqualification of elected representatives who misuse their authority to influence appointments.
Momin warned that unchecked political influence undermines meritocracy, erodes institutional credibility, and damages the democratic foundations of governance. It fosters frustration among the educated youth and breeds cynicism about the fairness of recruitment processes in Meghalaya. He asserted that Mendipathar College and the DSC in North Garo Hills must not become arenas where procedural norms are sidelined by personal interest or political connections.
Responding to the MLA’s claim that the public has no right to question such appointments—and that doing so amounts to defamation—Momin said this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities held by elected representatives in a constitutional democracy. He clarified that the main representation submitted to the Chief Minister remains in effect and has not been withdrawn. A minor clarification had been issued regarding the mistaken mention of two individuals, and that amendment was made in good faith and with full accountability.
Finally, the activist condemned the MLA’s attempt to discredit journalists, digital content creators, and civil society actors who are simply exercising their democratic right to hold those in power accountable. He said that a genuine clarification would engage with the facts and evidence transparently, not attack or silence those asking necessary questions.