Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Meghalaya High Court has upheld the appointment of three judges made above the number of advertised vacancies, citing exceptional circumstances and emergent situations. The court clarified that deviations from the number of vacancies and appointments are permissible in exceptional circumstances or emergent situations, but not for future vacancies. The court, presided over by Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, was dealing with a case involving the appointment of three Magistrate First Class officers in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) courts, which were made above the advertised vacancies. The petitioners challenged the appointments, arguing that they were made arbitrarily and illegally. However, the court found that the appointments were made due to compelling circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for speedy trials, and the commissioning of new benches in outlying districts. The court noted that the District Council Courts have special powers under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to constitute courts for the trial of suits and cases between parties belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The court relied on previous Supreme Court judgments, including Arup Das v. State of Assam (2012) and Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat (1994), which held that deviations from advertised vacancies are permissible in exceptional cases or emergent situations, but not for future vacancies. In this case, the court found that the appointments were made against clear and anticipated vacancies, and not future vacancies. “Such deviations are permissible when exceptional circumstances are prevalent, or the same is resorted to meet an emergent situation,” the court noted. The court determined that several important factors must be considered. Firstly, respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 are qualified candidates who have successfully completed a selection process and have been fulfilling their duties for over two years. It also noted that there have been no allegations of favouritism, nepotism, or any other flaws in the selection process that would invalidate it; the only challenge is a deviation from the original advertisement. The court, thus, ruled that “unseating them at this stage, will surely not be in public interest,” while dismissing the petition and holding that the appointments were made due to exceptional circumstances and a considered policy decision. Cause Title: NAPHIBANMER LASO v Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council [WP(C) No. 328 of 2022]