Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Cav : 12.08.2025 vs Khasi Hills Autonomous District … on 19 August, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:739-DB
Serial No.01
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.51/2024
Date of CAV : 12.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2025
Shri Cyprian Dkhar ..... Appellant
Vs.
1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) represented by the
Secretary, Executive Committee, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya-793002.
2. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the Government
of Meghalaya, District Council Affairs Department, Shillong, East Khasi
Hills, Meghalaya-793001.
3. The Registrar (Judicial Service), High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong, East
Khasi Hills, Meghalaya-793001.
4. Smti. Vyblue of Rest Mawlieh, Magistrate, First Class, Subordinate
District Council Court, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills Meghalaya.
5. Smti. Eblincy Lyngdoh Mawnai, Magistrate, First Class, Subordinate
District Council Court, Mawkyrwat, South West Khasi Hills Meghalaya.
6. Smti. Kerphidalin Warjri, Magistrate, First Class, Subordinate District
Council Court, Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv with
Mrs. R. Dutta, Adv
For the Respondent : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv for R/1
Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA for R/2
Mr. D.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv with
Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv for R/4-6
F
Page 1 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media
reporting this judgment is directed to mention the
composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting
this judgment/order.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
This appeal has been preferred by one of the writ petitioners in the
writ petition [WP(C) No. 328 of 2022]. There were two writ petitioners,
other being Smti. Naphibanmer Laso. The writ petition was dismissed by
a learned single judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 26 th
July, 2024. One of the writ petitioners Cyprian Dkhar has preferred this
appeal
The writ petitioners were candidates in a selection process for
appointment of Magistrates First-Class, District Council Courts. Three
posts were advertised for. The selection process was undertaken. A list of
selected candidates for those three posts advertised for along with a list of
waitlisted candidates was published. Now, it so happened that there were
five posts vacant, when the recruitment drive for three posts was initiated.
After publication of the above list, a move was undertaken to fill up the
other two vacant posts. A further post of Magistrate First-Class was in the
Page 2 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
process of creation. This was also taken into account. A policy decision
was taken by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC)
that the additional three posts would also be filled up, not by a
recruitment/selection process but by appointing candidates from the
waiting list. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Smti Vyblue of
Rest Mawlieh, Smti Elbincy Lyngdoh Mawnai and Smti Kerphidalin
Warjri were appointed from the waiting list. They are also respondent
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the appeal.
The writ petitioners participated in the selection test but were
nowhere in the original select list or the waiting list.
They challenged the entire procedure on the following substantial
grounds: on an advertisement for three posts and on their being filled up
by appointment, the selection process was completed and the list was
exhausted.
The selection/recruitment drive for the next three posts was a
fresh process for which the said waiting list could not be utilised. A new
procedure for appointment had to be initiated by advertisement inviting
applications, conducting test, viva voce and so on. The sixth post was not
an anticipatory vacancy but a future vacancy that could not be filled up
from the waiting list.
Page 3 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
Now, according to the writ petitioners, if a new selection process
had been started for the said three additional posts, they would stand a
chance.
Law on the subject:
A selection process initiated by 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 posts. It cannot fill up vacancies which are
expected to arise in the future. This simply means that selection may be
initiated for a post or posts in existence and vacant or likely to fall vacant
during this process. A post which is not in existence at the time of initiation
of the selection process but likely to be created or come into existence during
the selection process or at any time thereafter, cannot be filled up by the
advertised selection agenda.
Furthermore, if certain posts had been advertised by public
announcement to be filled up by a selection process, it had to be confined to
those posts only. The list of selected candidates or waitlisted candidates is
relevant to fill up those posts only. Posts not advertised for cannot be filled up
by the waitlisted candidates or other candidates from that selection process unless
the exigencies of the situation demand urgent filling up of those additional
vacancies from the said list of selected candidates and waitlisted candidates.
Page 4 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
This emergent situation has to be appreciated and embodied in a policy
decision by the recruitment authority or selection committee.
It follows that in case of appointments to future vacancies or
appointment to posts not advertised for, the selection or recruitment process
has to be thrown open again to the public at large for its participation.
Selection can only be made after a competitive participation from eligible
candidates [see Prem Singh & ors v. Haryana State Electricity Board & ors
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319].
In the absence of any specific rule, the life of a select panel is
usually one year [see State of Bihar & ors v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra
reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561 and State of Rajasthan & ors v. Jagdish
Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161].
Facts in detail:
On 6th November, 2019, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council, Shillong 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. The
candidate was to be a citizen of India belonging to the Schedule Tribes of
Meghalaya, conversant in the Khasi language and customs, be not more than
37 years and less than 25 years and have at least five years’ standing as an
Page 5 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DBAdvocate. In this recruitment process, a written test followed by a personal
interview was taken. After the selection process on 11 th January, 2021, the
said District Council announced the list of three successful candidates and a
waiting list of another three. In a communication by the District Council
dated 11th January, 2021, the following was inserted “the result is valid for a
period of one year from the date of this publication”. On 19 th August, 2021,
this Court was approached with a 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. This Court approved the said proposal
of the Council as would be evident from the communication of the Registrar
Judicial service to the Council dated 25th October, 2021. On 6th December,
2021, the Council extended the validity of the select list till 31 st March,
2022. On 4th February, 2022, the three waitlisted candidates were appointed
by the Hon’ble Governor as Magistrate First-Class, Subordinate District
Council Court, Shillong along with powers of Judicial Magistrate of the
First-Class.
Views:
When the appointments to the three posts of First-Class
Magistrates were made with publication of a select list which included a list
Page 6 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DBof the selected candidates and a list of waitlisted candidates, the selection
process initiated by the advertisement of 6th November, 2019 was concluded.
The list so published was in relation to that process and was valid for one
year. That is to say if any of the selected candidates did not join or resign or
was discharged within the one-year period, then the list of waitlisted
candidates could be utilised to fill up that vacancy.
Now, according to the above cited authorities, this waiting list
could not be used to fill up any other vacancy for which a new selection
process had to be initiated. However, there is one exception to this rule,
namely, grave urgency to fill up the post. On 19 th August, 2021, the Council
wrote to this Court that “the current situation in the State and the country as a
whole” referring to the covid pandemic and the need for more judicial
officers to conduct speedy trial, necessitated filling up of the vacant post
from the said waiting list. This High Court as it is evident from the
communication dated 25th October, 2021 acceded to this request.
Does this mean that the right of a selecting authority to appoint
candidates from the waiting list of a selection process which had been
concluded was being exercised by the selecting authority? When the High
Court acceded to this request, could it be said that a policy decision in this
behalf had been taken?
Page 7 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
We hold on the basis of the above authorities that subsequent
appointments of the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 on 28 th February, 2022, 28th
February, 2022 again on 4th March, 2022 on the basis of which all three
joined duties on 3rd March 2022 and 4th March, 2022, respectively were
invalid. It is plain that these respondents have been discharging their
functions for well over three and a half years. Two judgments cited by
learned Deputy Solicitor General, Dr. Mozika in Sivanandan C.T. & ors v.
High Court of Kerela & ors reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799 (paragraph 55)
and in Vivek Kaisth & anr v. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors reported in
(2024) 2 SCC 269 (paragraphs 43 and 44) come to the rescue of the
government. The Supreme Court took into account the long service which
the judicial officers had rendered, the experience they had gained and the
contribution they had made to the judiciary and declined to “unseat” them.
Here the service rendered by the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 is similar in
nature. Hence, I am also of the view that their service should not be
interfered with.
Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for these
respondents also made similar arguments as the learned Deputy Solicitor
General. He did not fail to argue that the induction of his clients from the waitlist
was further to a considered policy decision of the selecting authority with the
Page 8 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
concurrence of the High Court, based on grave urgency to fill up the
vacancies for the cause of speedy judicial administration during covid
period.
A silver lining in the sky occurred during the close of hearing of
this appeal, when learned Deputy Solicitor General remarked that there was
existing one vacancy and one future vacancy to arise soon.
Taking into account those submissions, we direct that to have a fair
and just result, the clock should be put back where it was when the three
posts were filled up from the waiting list. This could be done by creation of
one supernumerary post. There should be no difficulty in this because the
Council has repeatedly urged that it was in need of more judicial officers to
dispose of pending cases.
Hence, we direct the Council and the State to create one
supernumerary post. Any approval from the High Court or the government is
deemed to have been obtained. Such supernumerary post should be created
by 30th September, 2025. Thereafter, a selection test to fill up these posts
should be carried out where the appellant is at liberty to participate and to be
concluded within a further period of three months. In this way, the grievance
of the appellant is also redressed.
Page 9 of 10
2025:MLHC:739-DB
In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2025.08.19 16:21:40 IST