'Policy Matter': Meghalaya High Court Dismisses PIL Pertaining To Roaster System For Reserved Seats

Without adjudicating upon the merits of the matter, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that the court may be called upon to look into the matter at a more appropriate stage.

The roster system is a method of ensuring the reservation of posts in government employment, educational institutions and other establishments for persons belonging to certain communities. In the state of Meghalaya, it has been in place since its inception in 1972, but the absence of a roster has caused irregularities in appointments.

The bench noted that in the year 2022, in the course of a service matter before a Division Bench of the court, it was discovered that although the reservation policy had been in place in the state since its inception in January 1972, no roster had been prepared. Consequently, the court took suo motu cognisance of the irregularity and required all appointments to be stayed until a roster was prepared.

The court further noted that once a roster had been prepared and the matter was given a quietus, without going into the veracity of the roster that was prepared. Upon prima facie satisfaction that the roster adhered to the extent of reservation of about 85% that is in vogue in the state, the matter was considered closed, the court said.

After the directions of the Meghalaya High Court on the subject and the conclusion of the Legislative Assembly elections, the Voice of People's Party along with pressure groups, objected to the 2022 directive based on the perception that the roster would be retrospectively applied from 1972 when the reservation policy came into effect.

Contrariwise, Garo pressure groups maintained that the government should implement the roster system as per the Court’s directive, arguing that this would help clear backlogs, especially the return of posts rightfully reserved for Garos that they never received in the past.

In view of the conflicting views of stakeholders the Voice of the People Party (VPP) had threatened to hit the streets if the matter was not discussed in the Assembly and hence the matter was taken up for discussion by the state assembly. 

Taking judicial notice of these ongoing discussions pertaining to the roster in the new Assembly, the bench said that it does not however appear that any decision has been taken regarding a cut-off date, or how far back the roster system would be made applicable. Considering them as policy matters best left to the legislature and executive, the bench left it open for any citizen affected by the decision to question its propriety in accordance with the law.

As of now, without a decision in such regard having been taken by the Assembly, the present petition should not be entertained, the bench concluded.

"This petition, apparently filed in public interest, appears to be an attempt to muddy the already disturbed waters," it said and dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Greneth M. Sangma vs The State of Meghalaya & ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 15

Click Here To Read/ Download The Order