Meghalaya High Court: In an appeal filed by a candidate for Magistrates First-Class, challenging the entire process of appointment, a Division Judge Bench of I.P. Mukerji* CJ. and W. Diengdoh J. invalidated the appointment of 2022 Magistrate First-Class for the Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. The Court held that the waiting list could not be used to fill up any other vacancy for which a new selection process had to be initiated and ordered the creation of one supernumerary post where the appellant would be at liberty to participate.
Background
In the present case, the respondent published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up three vacant posts of Magistrates First-Class for the Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. In this recruitment process, a written test followed by a personal interview was taken.
After the selection process, in January 2021, the District Council announced the list of three successful candidates and a waiting list of another three and it stated, “the result is valid for a period of one year from the date of this publication”.
In August 2021, this Court approved the request from the Secretary to the Executive Committee of the Council to the effect that there were three further vacant posts and that as a special case, the Council be allowed to fill up these vacancies from the said waiting list. In December 2021, the Council extended the validity of the select list till March 2022.
In February 2022, the Respondents 4, 5, and 6 were appointed by the Governor as Magistrate First-Class, Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong along with powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First-Class. The appellant had participated in the selection test but was neither included in the original select list nor in the waiting list. Consequently, he challenged the entire procedure, arguing that the advertisement for three posts had been fulfilled with the respective appointments, thereby completing the selection process and exhausting the list. He further contended that the selection for the next three posts constituted a new process, and therefore, the waiting list from the earlier process could not be utilized.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the State or a State agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution can only fill up existing and anticipated vacancies in a post or post and not the vacancies which are expected to arise in the future. Further, the Court viewed that a post which was not in existence at the time of initiation of the selection process but would likely be created or come into existence during the selection process or at any time, thereafter, could not be filled up by the advertised selection agenda.
The Court also stated that in the case of appointments to future vacancies or appointments to posts not advertised for, the selection or recruitment process would be thrown open again to the public at large for its participation and selection would only be made after a competitive participation from eligible candidates. Also, in the absence of any specific rule, the life of a select panel would usually be one year.
Thus, the Court opined that the waiting list could not be used to fill up any other vacancy for which a new selection process had to be initiated. Further the Court stated that there was one exception to this rule, that was, grave urgency to fill up the post.
The Court viewed that this Court acceded to the Council’s request because it referred to the covid pandemic and the need for more judicial officers to conduct speedy trial, necessitating filling up of the vacant post from the waiting list concerned.
Thus, the Court held that the appointment of Respondents 4, 5, and 6 was invalid. However, considering the long service that they had rendered, their gained experience and contributions made, the Court opined that their service should not be interfered with.
Considering the Deputy Solicitor General’s remark that there was one existing vacancy, and one future vacancy would arise soon, the Court directed a fair and just trial. Further, the Court disposed of the appeal and directed the Council and the State to create one supernumerary post by September 2025 for which a selection test would be carried out where the appellant would be at liberty to participate. This test should be concluded within a period of three months.
[Cyprian Dkhar v. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, 2025 SCC OnLine Megh 915, decided on 19-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: K. Paul, Sr. Adv and R. Dutta, Adv
For the Respondents: N. Mozika, DSGI, M.L. Nongpiur, Adv, N.D. Chullai, AAG, Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA, D.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv and T. Sutnga, Adv
