Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Lotstar N. Arengh - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 288, 268, 269 and 270/2013
Decided On : 18-06-2014
Recruitment Test - Written Test - Allegations of Leakage of Question Papers and Favoritism - Magisterial Enquiry - No Concrete Evidence - Petitioners' Conduct of Waiting for 10 Months to File Writ Petition - Petitioners' Lack of Bonafide - Apex Court Precedents - Dismissal of Writ Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, after trying their luck in the written test examination for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and found not successful, filed the present writ petition only in the month of October, 2013 challenging the list of the successful candidates of the written test examination dated 19.06.2013 by alleging serious allegations against the authority, who conducted the written test examination. Petitioners did not protest or complain before appearing the written test examination on 22.09.2012 and were fully satisfied with the manner the authorities conducted the written test examination on 22.09.2012 and after appearing the written test examination, the petitioners and other had been waiting eagerly for the result of the written test examination about 10 (ten) months without making any complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The allegations of the petitioners in the present writ petition against the authorities in conducting the written test examination and also leakage of question papers are only based on surmises and conjectures and that the allegations are unfounded and unjustified. The writ petitioners filed the present writ petition, only after their names were not included in the list of the successful candidates and after appearing the written test examination without any complaint, objection and demur, by alleging the allegations on surmises and conjectures. The conduct of the petitioners, who tried their luck in the written test examination and waited about 10 months for the result of the written test examination, without making any complaint and filed the present writ petition only after the result was not favourable to them show the lack of bonafide in filing the present writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the allegations of leakage of question papers and favoritism in the written test examination were substantiated by the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners' conduct of waiting for 10 months to file the writ petition showed a lack of bonafide? 3. Whether the Apex Court precedents cited by the petitioners were applicable to the facts of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The allegations of the petitioners in the present writ petition against the authorities in conducting the written test examination and also leakage of question papers are only based on surmises and conjectures and that the allegations are unfounded and unjustified. 2. The conduct of the petitioners, who tried their luck in the written test examination and waited about 10 months for the result of the written test examination, without making any complaint and filed the present writ petition only after the result was not favourable to them show the lack of bonafide in filing the present writ petition. 3. The Apex Court precedents cited by the petitioners were not applicable to the facts of the case as they involved different factual situations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed.
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. These four writ petitions involving the same question of facts and law relating with the recruitment test or written test for the posts advertised in the advertisement dated 10.02.2012 issued by the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar were taken up for joint hearing for disposal by a common judgment and order. For writing the common judgment and order WP(C) No. 288 of 2013 is taken up as a leading case so as to avoid repetition of facts and law.
WP(C) No. 288/2013
2. The writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 288/2013, after trying their luck by appearing in the written test examination for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant (for short 'LDA') on 22.09.2012 and found not successful in the written test examination, filed the present writ petition only in the month of October, 2013 challenging the list of the successful candidates of the written test examination dated 19.06.2013 by alleging serious allegations against the authority, who conducted the written test examination. In the writ petition, no satisfactory explanation had been mentioned as to why they had been waiting for more than one year for filing the present writ petition alleging serious allegations against the authority, who conducted the said written test examination i.e. on 22.09.2012.
3. Heard Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-7. Also heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondents No. 8-23 in WP(C) No. 288/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C) No. 268/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C) No. 269/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C) No. 270/2013.
4. Factual Background:- The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar issued an advertisement dated Williamnagar 10.02.2012 for appointment to the posts of (i) Lady Supervisor (ii) L.D. Assistant (iii) Fishery Demonstrator (iv) Sectional Assistant (v) Driver (vi) Soil & Water Conservation Field Worker (vii) Duftry (viii) Plumber (ix) Chowkidar (x) Kalasi and (xi) Handyman. In the said advertisement dated 10.02.2012, numbers of posts advertised are not mentioned but only the words "few posts" are mentioned as number of posts advertised. For easy reference, the said advertisement dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) is reproduced below:-
GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST GARO HILLS
DISTRICT, WILLIAMNAGAR.
No. EGH/DSC/69/99/216 Dated Williamnagar 10th February, 2012.
ADVERTISEMENT
An application in standard form are invited from the permanent residents of Meghalaya for the under-mentioned posts. The post carry the scale of pay besides usual allowances as admissible under the rules issued by the Govt. from time to time.
Application should be submitted in standard form of application prescribed in Part-IX of the Gazette of Meghalaya along with attested copies of certificates relating to age, qualification, caste citizenship, and 3 (three) copies of attested passport size photographs so as to reach the undersigned on or before 12th March, 2012.
Candidate already in Govt. Service/Other Statutory Bodies should apply directly to the undersigned with a copy of "No objection Certificate" from their Employer/Authority.
AGE LIMIT.
Candidate must not be less than 18 (eighteen) years of age and not more than 27 (twenty seven) years of age as on 1st January 2012. The age is relaxable up to 5 (five) years for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste candidate. There will be no age bar for those already in Meghalaya Govt. services provided they entered service within the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
