Bar & Bench ()

1 WA No. 52 of 2011 along with the connected matters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

: J U D G M E N T:

1 WA No. 52 of 2011

State of Meghalaya & Anr -vrs-

Smti. Phikirbha Khariah & Ors

2. WA No. 53 of 2011 Shri Kamai Marsharing & Ors

-vrs- Smti. Phikirbha Khariah & Ors

3. WA No. 55 of 2011


Shri Defender M. Pale 4. WA No. 56 of 2011


Shri Ridimi Tongper & Ors 5. WA No. 57 of 2011


Shri Lurshai Kharpran & Ors 6. WA No. 58 of 2011


Smti. Warida Lamare 7. WA No. 59 of 2011


Smti. Judicious Suting 8. WA No. 60 of 2011


Shri Robert K.C. Momin 9. WA No. 61 of 2011


Shri Mihsalan Law

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)


10. WA No. 62 of 2011


Ms. Kmenkima Sutong 11. WA No. 63 of 2011

Shri Shiva Embynta Siangshai & Ors -vrs-

Smti. Phikirbha Khariah & Ors 12. WA No. 65 of 2011

Smti. Unity Passwet & Ors -vrs-

Shri Ridimi Tongper & Ors 13. WP(C) No. 65 of 2014

Smti. Sambharika Sungoh & Ors -vrs-

State of Meghalaya & Ors 14. WP(C) No. 66 of 2014

Smti. Chika Shadap -vrs-


Smti. Rapbiang Sajem -vrs-


Smti. Mun Mun Mukhim & Ors -vrs-


Smt. Bluesina Mukhim -vrs-


Smti. Baaipaka Budon & Anr -vrs-


Smti. Sunita Koch -vrs-


Smti. Deimon Tariang -vrs-

State of Meghalaya & Ors



21. WP(C) No.113 of 2014 Shri Synta Pohthmi

-vrs- State of Meghalaya & Ors

22. WP(C) No.116 of 2014

Shri Shemphang Pohshna -vrs-

State of Meghalaya & Ors 23. WP(C) No.166 of 2014

Smti. Meriki Dkhar & Ors -vrs-


Smti. Queenjuly Month Thongni -vrs-

State of Meghalaya & Ors 25. WA No.8 of 2017

Shri Salgring Ch. Marak & Ors -vrs-


Shri Salgring Ch. Marak & Ors -vrs-


Shri Fenlevy N. Sangma & Ors -vrs-


Shri. Fenlevy N. Sangma -vrs-

State of Meghalaya 29. WA No.12 of 2017

Shri Nazmul Hashan -vrs-

State of Meghalaya & Ors 30. WP(C) No.87of 2017

Smti. Elizabeth Marboh -vrs-


Smti. Nital Suna -vrs-




32. WP(C) No.131 of 2017 Smti. Darisuk Pyrngap

-vrs- State of Meghalaya & Ors

33. WP(C) No.132 of 2017

Smti. Rita Ryngkhlem & Ors -vrs-


Date of Judgment :: 2nd November 2017

PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

Dr. BP Todi, Advocate General with Ms. P Agarwal, for the appellants in WA Nos.52, 55 - 62 of 2011 Shri P Yobin, for the appellants in WA No.53, 63 and 65 of 20111; Shri S Dey, for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.88,65,66 and 70 of 2014 and 132 of 2017 Shri NM Mansuri, for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.112 and 116 of 2014 Shri HL Shangreiso, for the petitioners in WP(C) No.72 of 2014, 87 of 2017 and 131 of 2017 Shri AS Siddiqui, for the petitioner in WP(C)No.73 of 2014 Shri S Chakrawarty, Sr. Advocate with Ms. M Mahanta for the petitioners in WP(C) No.83 of 2014 Shri N Syngkon, for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 113 of 2014 Shri MZ Ahmed Sr. Advocate with Shri AM Dutta, for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.166 of 2014 Shri B Khyriem, for the petitioner in WP(C)No.121 of 2014 Shri AM Suna, for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 111 of 2017 Shri PT Sangma, for the appellants in WA Nos. 8 -12 of 2017 and Interveners in WA Nos. 52, 55 - 62 of 2011 Shri R Jha, for the respondents in WA Nos.56 and 65 of 2011 Shri SD Upadhaya, for the respondent in WA No.57 of 2011 Shri MF Quershi, for the respondents in WA Nos.59 and 63 of 2011 Shri M Halder, for the respondent in WA No.60 of 2011 Shri K Baruah, for the respondent in WA No.62 of 2011 Shri KP Bhattacharjee, GA for the respondents in the writ petitions Shri K Paul & Ms.N Gurung, for interveners in WA Nos. 52, 55 - 62 of 2011 Shri VK Jindal Sr. Advocate with Ms. M Marak, for CBI

AFR BY THE COURT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) PRELIMINARY AND BRIEF OUTLINE The intra-court appeals and the writ petitions in this batch of cases

involving similar and/or inter-related facts and issues have been heard

1for the appellants No. 1-3,6,7,9-11,14-17,20,21,24,26-30,32-34,36-40,42,43,45-48,50-

55,57,60,62,64,65,69-77,81,84,89-94 in WA No. 63 of 2011 and for the appellants No. 3,5-11,13,15-25,27,29,30,32-34,36,38,40-43 in WA No.65 of 2011



together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. In view

of the inordinate expansion of facts and the submissions in these matters,

appropriate it would be to indicate the brief outline before entering into the

details.

The dispute and the issues in this batch of cases have their genesis

in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government

Lower Primary Schools in the State of Meghalaya that was taken up at

different Centres in the years 2008–2009 and pursuant whereof, several

persons were appointed as Assistant Teacher but several unsuccessful

candidates preferred nine writ petitions2, while questioning the selection

process as being illegal and malafide. These writ petitions were decided

together by a learned Single Judge by the common order dated

21.10.2011, with the conclusion, inter alia, that there was strong prima

facie evidence of „massive irregularities, arbitrariness and manipulations‟;

and that a fair and impartial inquiry into the entire selection process was

imperative, which could be realised only through the Central Bureau

Investigation [„CBI‟]. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed the CBI

to carry out the necessary inquiry in regard to the specific allegations

occurring in the averments taken in the writ petitions as also in the papers

annexed thereto; and further directed that on the basis of the inquiry

report, the respondent authorities would take consequential actions,

including cancellation of the entire selection process and all the

appointments and restarting of the process. Pursuant to these directions,

the CBI conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 05.03.2012 in

the High Court in a sealed cover. However, the order so passed by the

learned Single Judge was challenged in intra-court appeals which were

again considered as group matters and were decided by the Division

2 The writ petitions were filed in the Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court that was, at the relevant

time, exercising jurisdiction over the State of Meghalaya



Bench of Gauhati High Court by the common judgment dated 16.08.2012.

The Hon‟ble Division Bench accepted the submissions made on behalf of

the State that inquiry by CBI was not requisite and the matter ought to

have been left for appropriate scrutiny and inquiry by the Government. The

Division Bench, however, did not annul the report of the CBI but directed

that the records be reviewed and be re-scrutinised by the Committee, to be

constituted by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in

its Education Department, regarding the candidature of selected and

unselected candidates within the ambit and scope of the writ petitions filed

before the Court while taking beneficial assistance and guidance of the

findings, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI in its report. The Division

Bench further directed that the services of the tainted candidates be

terminated; the bonafide untainted candidates be retained; and the

unselected, who were otherwise found eligible, be appointed.

Pursuant to the directions aforesaid, a so-called High Level Scrutiny

Committee [„HLSC‟/„the Committee‟] was constituted by the Government.

This Committee proceeded to make its report on 29.07.2013 with the

findings on several tainted candidates and with observations on several

aspects that shall be detailed out hereafter later. The Committee

recommended for termination of the services of tainted candidates, and for

retention of untainted selected candidates as also for appointment of other

untainted candidates, who were otherwise found eligible. Pursuant to this

report, steps were taken by the Director, School Education and Literacy to

terminate the services of 246 candidates in the month of February 2014.

After such steps by the Government and its officials, some of the

terminated candidates preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal

[„SLP‟] before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, challenging their termination

orders along with the judgment dated 16.08.2012 whereas some other



terminated candidates preferred the writ petitions in this Court challenging

their orders of termination. On 21.04.2014, operation of the Judgment

dated 16.08.2012 was stayed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court; and

thereafter, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme

Court, proceedings in the writ petitions filed in this Court were kept in

abeyance. A few more terminated as also unsuccessful candidates sought

impleadment in the pending SLP but, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court only

extended them liberty to express their views as interveners.

However, when the matter was finally taken up before the Honb‟le

Supreme Court, it was suggested on behalf of the State that services of

several candidates had been terminated and such a fact was disputed by

the opposite parties. It was also given out that the report made by the CBI

was lying in a sealed cover and HLSC had also submitted its report. In the

given scenario, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court formed the view that the High

Court need to have a fresh look at the matter in the light of these two

reports of CBI and HLSC and after hearing the parties. Hence, while

setting aside the order impugned, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court remitted the

matter to this Court by its order dated 24.03.2017, as passed in Civil

Appeal No. 4565 of 2017 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11357 of 2014) that

reads as under:

“Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State of Meghalaya submits that out of 268 candidates who were appointed, services of 249 have been terminated. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants disputes the above statement. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the CBI inquiry as directed by the learned Single Judge has already been concluded and the report received by the High Court which is lying in a sealed cover. On the other hand, Ms. Rachana Srivastava states that report of the Committee appointed in terms of the impugned order has also submitted its report. We are of the view that the High Court ought to have a fresh look at the matter in the light of the two reports which have already been submitted and after hearing the parties concerned. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remitted back to the Meghalaya High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The civil appeal is disposed of in above stated terms.



Parties are directed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings on 10.04.2017.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court,

the intra-court appeals of the year 2011 in this bunch of matters stand

revived for consideration; and the writ petitions of the year 2014, which

have remained pending while awaiting the decision of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court and, for being related to the same subject matter, have

also been taken up with the revived appeals. The other writ petitions of the

year 2017 are the newly instituted cases, filed after the aforesaid revival of

the previous intra-court appeals. The other intra-court appeals, of the year

2017, arise out of the orders passed in some other writ petitions that were

filed belatedly and were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the

ground of delay and laches. Though these appeals were also barred by

time but, having regard to the revival of the earlier appeals and for the

reason of similar issues, delay in filing these appeals was condoned.

Further, there are several other candidates who have been allowed to

intervene, which include some such persons, who were

appellants/interveners before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

Civil Appeal No. 4565 of 2017 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 11357 of 2014];

and there are some other interveners too, whose petitions/appeals were

earlier dismissed by this Court but, in the interest of justice, they have also

been allowed to intervene in the revived intra-court appeals.

The forum for fresh consideration and decision

At the very threshold, we deem it just and proper to deal with one of

the submissions made, particularly by the learned counsel Shri K Paul

appearing for the interveners, that the entire matter, after having been

remitted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, ought to be examined by the

learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petitions ought to be

revived for reconsideration. The learned counsel would submit that in view



of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the appeals filed by the State

and other persons are rendered infructuous and even otherwise, when

there had not been any adjudication by the Court on facts, the fresh

consideration of the matter, as directed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court,

ought to be by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the first place. On

our queries if the report of HLSC, constituted under the order of the

Division Bench and to be taken into consideration as per the order of the

Supreme Court, could be dealt with by the learned Single Judge, the

learned counsel responded that the learned Single Judge could deal with

the said report too and even annul the same, if necessary. We are unable

to agree.

As noticed, the learned Single Judge while dealing with the said nine

writ petitions found a prima facie case of manipulation in the selection

process and considered it proper to refer the matter for inquiry by the CBI.

The Division Bench, however, agreed with the submissions that the matter

ought to have been left for inquiry by the State Government itself. Before

the judgment of the Division Bench, the CBI had already carried out the

inquiry and had submitted its report. After the judgment of the Division

Bench, the HLSC constituted by the Principal Secretary to the Government

of Meghalaya in its Education Department also submitted its report and

some of the follow-up actions were taken with termination of the services

of some such candidates who were found tainted in the inquiry. The

aggrieved persons, thereafter, approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

challenging the orders of their termination as also the judgment of the

Division Bench in intra-court appeals. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the

first place stayed the judgment dated 16.08.2012 as passed by the

Division Bench of Gauhati High Court but, ultimately, found that the matter

needs to be re-examined by the High Court in the light of the said two



reports, as made by the CBI and by the HLSC and hence, remitted the

matter to this Court while setting aside the judgment impugned before it.

Indisputably, it was the judgment of the Division Bench dated

16.08.2012, as passed in the above-referred intra-court appeals of the

year 2011, which was under challenge before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

and, while setting the same aside, the Hon‟ble Supreme remitted the

matter to this Court. Obviously, the matter needs to be given a fresh look in

the High Court in those intra-court appeals, which stand revived per the

force of the order passed by the Supreme Court. In our view, it is entirely

incorrect to contend that these intra-court appeals have been rendered

infructuous. An auxiliary but significant aspect of the matter is that the

report of HLSC, which has been made pursuant to the order of the Division

Bench in intra-court appeals, is also to form the foundation of fresh

consideration of the entire matter. In our view, such a consideration with

reference to the report of HLSC could justifiably be taken up only by the

Division Bench and not by the learned Single Judge because such a report

has been made only pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench. Even

otherwise, the pending writ petitions have also been withdrawn to the

Division Bench so as to provide analogous hearing and to finally conclude

the matter, so far this Court is concerned. Therefore, we find no substance

in the suggestions that the matters need to be considered by the Single

Judge; and these suggestions stand rejected.

We have heard the matter at a substantial length while allowing the

learned counsel for the parties to go through the relevant records from time

to time and have scanned through the volumes of records placed before us

along with the said reports, one made by the CBI on 05.03.2012 and the

other made by the HLSC on 29.07.2013.



BACKGROUND ASPECTS

Even a glance at the outline foregoing would make it evident that

serious issues, concerning the fairness and legality of the process of

selection to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Lower Primary

Schools in the State of Meghalaya, are involved herein; and the entire

matter is to be re-examined in the light of the two reports made by the CBI

and the HLSC coupled with the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties. For a proper comprehension of the complexities of this

controversy, it is rather inevitable to expansively take note of the relevant

background aspects as also the essential features of, and findings in, the

reports made by CBI and HLSC; and further, of the other facts that have

surfaced during the course of hearing.

The rather unfortunate story, as it turns out to be, of these matters

had its prelude in a notification bearing number EDN.360/85/Pt.II/360

dated 18.02.2005, as issued by the Government of Meghalaya in its

Education Department to the effect that anyone desirous to be appointed

as Assistant Teacher in Government L.P. School should pass the State

Eligibility Test [„SET‟]. In this notification, the eligibility conditions as also

the method and criteria for conducting the SET were prescribed and the

work was entrusted to the Directorate of Educational Research & Training,

Meghalaya, Shillong [„DERT‟]. Thereafter, the DERT issued an

advertisement dated 15.06.2006 for conducting the SET as contemplated,

while prescribing the eligibility condition as also the age limit in the manner

that the interested candidate should have the minimum qualification of

HSSLC/Class XII from any recognised university/board; and must not be

less than 18 years of age and above 27 years of age as on 01.07.2006

with upper age relaxable by five years in case of SC/ST. It has been



indicated that about 3100 candidates cleared the said SET, as against 749

vacancies. However, this process, even after having been completed, did

not result in appointment of any person on the post of Assistant Teacher in

Government L.P. School.

Thereafter, the Government of Meghalaya in its Education

Department came out with another notification No. EDN.360/85/Pt.II/428

dated 24.11.2008 in supersession of the earlier notification No.

EDN.360/85/Pt.II/360 dated 18.02.2005, purportedly prescribing the

procedure to be adopted in the matters of appointment of teachers in

Government L.P. Schools and, inter alia, providing for an eligibility test for

the persons desirous of applying for appointment as L.P. School teacher

but with exemptions as under:

”There shall be an Eligibility Test for all persons desirous of applying for appointment as L.P. School teachers and only persons who have passed the test shall be eligible for appointment as such L.P. School teachers; Provided that the following persons are exempted from the requirement to pass the aforesaid Eligibility Test: (i) Persons possessing qualifications which are higher than the

minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as L.P. School teacher with not less than 45% marks in their degree examination.

(ii) Persons who have successfully completed the course of training for

L.P. School teachers conducted by District Institutes for Education and Training (DIETs), Normal Training Schools (NTSs), Basic Training Centres (BTCs) and Cherra Teachers‟ Training Centre (CTTC) and obtained the Junior Teachers‟ Training Certificate/Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education (DETE)/Diploma in Education (D.Ed.)

(iii) Persons who possess the minimum qualification prescribed for

appointment as L.P. School teacher who have been teaching in L.P. Schools for a period of not less than 5 (five) years from the date of issue of this Notification.”

It was also provided that the eligibility test would be conducted Sub-

Division wise and only the person with minimum qualification shall be

eligible to sit in the test. While further providing for the syllabus and

duration of the written examination, the method of evaluation was also

stated. Further, the division of marks on academic qualification,

personality, expression ability and suitability in the personal interview were



also provided with weightage marks for professional qualifications. The

composition of Interview Board was also provided. It was also provided

that the candidate should not be less than 18 years of age and should not

have crossed 27 years of age (relaxable to 32 years in case of SC/ST

candidates) as on 1st January of the year on which the post was

advertised. In case of in-service candidates, it was provided that the

candidate should have been within the age limit when first entered in

service.

The aforesaid had been the methodology for eligibility test in the

said notification dated 24.11.2008. Thereafter, the method of selection was

provided in clauses 29 and 30 of the notification, which are of bearing in

these matters. The said clauses 29 and 30 of the notification dated

24.11.2008 read as under:

“SELECTION COMMITTEE

29. The Selection Committee shall consist of the following members:

(i) SDO/EAC of the subdivision concerned Chairman (ii) Deputy DEME Member Secretary

(iii) Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster of any Government UPS to be nominated Member by DEME (iv) Head teacher of the Government LPS where the vacancy occurs Member (v) Lecturer of a DIET located in the District Concerned to be nominated Member by the Director ERT

The office of the DI of Schools concerned shall render all necessary secretarial and other assistance to the Selection Committee in the conduct of the interview.

30. The full marks for this personal interview shall be 50 (fifty) and the distribution of marks shall be as follows:

(i) Academic Qualification - 10 marks (ii) Professional Qualification - 10 marks (iii) Suitability - 10 marks (iv) Experience - 10 marks (v) Micro-teaching ability - 10 marks The following weightage will be applicable:- Under the “Academic Qualification” head (i) Degree level (45%+) and above - 10 marks (ii) Class XII passed 1st Division - 7 marks



2nd Division - 5 marks 3rd Division - 2 marks Under the “Professional Qualification” head (iii) SET qualified candidate - 10 marks (iv) BTC/DIET passed - 8 marks (v) B.Ed - 5 marks Under the “experience” head (vi) Contractual teachers (on account of experience) – 7 marks”

It has been indicated that the aforesaid scheme of awarding marks

was further defined and elaborated by the Directorate concerned as

follows:

“NON-VARIABLE MARKS/SCORE” (a) Academic - 10 Marks (Maximum)

Degree with 45% marks - 7 marks

Class XII 1st Div - 5 marks

- do – 2nd Div - 2 marks

(b) Professional - 10 marks (Maximum)

SET Passed - 10 marks (Maximum)

BTC/DIET Passed - 8 marks

B.Ed Passed - 5 marks “VARIABLE MARK/SCORE” (c) Viva Voce and Practice Teaching - 30 marks (Maximum) Break up

Suitability (4 members) 5+5+5+5 - 20 marks

Experience and Practice Teaching ability - 10 marks Grand Total (Academic+Professional+Viva Voce = 10+10+30 = 50 marks”

It was further provided in the notification dated 24.11.2008 that after

the personal interview, list of the selected candidates in order of merit shall

be prepared by the Selection Committee and shall be sent by the Director,

Elementary & Mass Education to the Education Department for approval.

Further to this, it was also provided that the approved merit list shall be

published by the Director and appointment shall be offered to the

candidates strictly in the approved order of merit and no departure shall be

resorted to without approval of the Director; and the appointment order

shall be issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools.



Thereafter, The Deputy Inspector of Schools proceeded to issue the

advertisement dated 10.12.2008 inviting applications for appointment to

the post of Assistant Teachers in the Government L.P. Schools in the scale

of pay of Rs. 3450-80-3930-EB-90-4650-100-5650/- that reads as under:

“ADVERTISEMENT

In pursuance of Government Notification No. EDN.360/85/Pt.II/428 dated 24th November, 2008, applications in the standard form are invited from the citizen of India for appointment to the post of the “Asstt. Teachers” in the Government Lower Primary Schools in the scale of pay of Rs. 3450-80-3930-EB-90-4650-100-5650/- per month.

Eligibility and Educational Qualification: 1) Educational Qualification:

a) HSSLC or Pre-University Passed candidates who have cleared SET during 2006-07. OR b) BA/B.Sc/B.Com passed candidate of any recognized University established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature having secured a minimum of 45% marks. OR c) Person who have successfully completed the course of training for LP School teachers conducted by DIET, Normal Training (NTC) Basic Training Centre (BTC) Cherra Teacher Training Centre (CTTC) and obtained the Junior Teacher Training Certificate/Diploma in Elementary Teacher Education (DETE) or Diploma in Education (D.Ed)/CPE Course conducted by IGNOU. OR d) Persons who possess the minimum qualification (HSSLC/PUC) prescribed for appointment as LP School Teacher who have been teaching in the Government LP Schools for a continuous period of not less than 5 (five) years as on 24-11-2008 are also eligible to apply provided they entered service within the prescribed age limit of 27 years. (32 years for SC/ST as on 25.11.2003)

2) Age: Candidate should not be less than 18 years of age and more than 27 years of age (32 years for SC/ST) on the 1st day of December, 2008.

Applications should be submitted to the office of the undersigned along with the photocopy of the following documents duly attested by a gazetted Officer:-

1. Two passport size photograph (one to be pasted on the application form)

2. Birth Certificate or /HSLC/SSLC Certificate/Admit Card as proof of age.

3) Photocopy of HSSLC/Pre-University Certificate/Mark-sheets. 4) Photocopy of B.A/B.Sc/B.Com/B.Ed Certificate and mark-sheets. 5)Photocpopy of Diplomas/Certificates issued by DIET.BTC/CTTC/

NTCs etc.

(iii) Last date for submission of applications – 9th JANUARY, 2009.

Candidates found eligible and qualified for the post shall have to appear for the personnel interview to be conducted by the Selection



Committee as constituted by the Government on the dates and venue to be notified later.

Candidates canvassing directly or indirectly in any form shall be liable to be disqualified.”

Pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, about 4928 candidates

appeared for the interview in the respective Sub-divisions of which, 1163

were declared selected in the first list issued by the Directorate of

Elementary and Mass Education on 23.12.2009, including wait list

candidates, against 857 vacancies until the year 2010. While declaring the

result, the Directorate also issued a notice to the effect that the results may

not be free from clerical errors, omissions and mistakes, which might have

occurred during compilation and even assignment of marks during the

interview by the Board and hence, the aggrieved candidate may make

representation within 60 days of the declaration of result. It appears that no

effective representation at that stage was made but several unsuccessful

candidates gathered various information under the Right to Information

Act, 2005 and thereafter, preferred nine writ petitions, while questioning

the selection process as being illegal, malafide and suffering from

widespread manipulations and favouritism. One of the candidates even

filed a First Information Report [„FIR‟] with the allegations that her marks

had been erased in the compilation sheet and as a result of such

manipulation, she was deprived of the job opportunity whereupon,

Laitumkhrah Police Station Case No.62 (7) of 2011 was registered, initially,

for offence under Section 408 IPC and therein, certain other complaints

and FIRs alleging the offences under Sections 120B/167/466/34 have also

been clubbed; and as at present, investigation remains pending. In regard

to this FIR, the relevant aspects shall be discussed a little later.

DISPOSAL OF WRIT PETITIONS BY THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2011 -

DIRECTIONS FOR INQUIRY BY CBI



The writ petitions aforesaid were considered together but the matters

in issue in each case were comprehensively examined by the learned

Single Judge of the Shillong Bench of Gauhati High Court in the common

order dated 21.10.2011, where it was maintained on behalf of the State

that there had not been any illegality or error in the results declared; and

the petitioners had failed to make any representation though they could

have done so. The learned Single Judge, basically with reference to the

lead case WP (C) No.106 (SH) of 2010, meticulously examined all the

relevant background aspects and the scheme of the selection process as

also the rival contentions and then, in the first place found that there were

certain such respondents who were over-aged and their appointments

were not sustainable. The learned Single Judge held in this regard as

under:-

“23. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 26, it is seen that she had been serving at Madankhliehriat Upper Primary School since 1999, which is obviously not a Government LP School. She, on the basis of her date of birth (Annexure-III), had already exceeded 32 years by about 4 months on 24-11-2008. As she was then not serving in a Government LP School, she could not be saved by Clause 1(d) of the rules. Having become overage when she applied for the post, she could not have been allowed to participate in the personal interview. Similarly, the respondent No. 27 was overage by the time she applied for the post as she never served in a Government LP School. So is the respondent Nos. 31, 35, 40, 46, 53, 59 and 87, who never worked in Government LP Schools as evident from their respective affidavits-in-opposition. There is no evidence from the affidavit-in-opposition of the State-respondents to indicate that their ages have been relaxed. Thus, on the facts found by me, prima facie, the selection of these respondents who are overage and their subsequent appointments cannot be sustained in law......”

(underlining supplied for emphasis)

The learned Single Judge thereafter considered the question of

award of marks under the head “Experience” and found such obvious

errors where, in terms of their age, the marks as awarded to some in-

service candidates would have been possible only if they entered the

service at the age of minority! On the other hand, it was also found that

some of the petitioners having higher length of teaching experience were

awarded lesser marks and the learned Single Judge sniffed that something



was indeed rotten and the selection process suffered from arbitrariness

and nepotism. The learned Single Judge observed in this regard as under:-

“The next question which falls for consideration is, whether the marks given to respondent Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 21, 28, 30, 33, 38 45, 52, 55, 57, 64, 71, 75, 76, 80. 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 90,91, 92, 94, 95, 97 and 98 under the head of “Experiences” are possible on the basis of their respective dates of birth? As already noticed, a total of 10 marks is allotted for experience and seven marks are meant for experience as a contractual teacher. The allegation of the petitioners is that ten marks given to respondent 7, who was born in 1983, under this head was hardly possible when she could only have served 7 years: she must have been teaching at the age of 16 years. Moreover, there is no evidence of her serving as a teacher at any time. On what basis such marks were given to respondent 7 is not known and no explanation is forthcoming from the respondent authorities. For example, the petitioner had a teaching experience of 7 years but was given nil mark under this head. Similarly, the petitioner No. 6 was given only 4 marks when she had a teaching experience of 11 years out of which 5 years were rendered as contractual teacher.

24. It is not comprehensible as to whether the marks under the head “Experience” were awarded on the basis of the number of years as a teacher or as a contractual teacher rendered by him/her or both. Suppose, the candidate had rendered no service at all as a contractual teacher, was he/she to be given marks under the head of “Experience” up to 10 marks? Again, if he/she only had rendered his/her service as a contractual teacher for eight/nine years, could he/she be entitled to a maximum of 7 marks only? Or only when a candidate rendered services both as a contractual teacher as well as non-contractual teacher that he/she would be entitled to marks up to 10 marks? In view of this ambiguity and uncertainty, the respondent No. 88, who was admittedly born in the year 1988 and was, therefore, hardly 20 years when she applied for the post in 2008, managed to get 7 marks under the head of “Experience”, which cannot be permitted: she would be about 14 years old when she started working as a teacher! So is the respondent No. 82, who was admittedly born in the year 1987 but was awarded 10 marks under this head. Similarly, the respondent Nos. 10, 12, 16, 19, 21, 28, 30, 33, 38, 45, 64, 75, 83, 86, 90, 91, 94, 97 and 98, who were born in different years but between the years 1982 and 1986, were awarded 10 marks when the youngest of them would be able to start working as a teacher at the age of only 17 years. On the other hand, the petitioner No. 7 had a teaching experience of seven years, but was awarded only 1 mark under this head. Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 11 had teaching experiences of 6 years and 9 years but were awarded 1 mark, 2 marks and three marks respectively. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark! In the absence of rational explanation for this state of affairs, which is the case here, I am constrained to observe, prima facie, that the selection process suffers from arbitrariness, perversity and irregularities and is indefensible. The inference is, therefore, irresistible and the conclusion inescapable that the impugned selection process is vitiated by nepotism, favouritism and malice in law, if not malice in fact.”


The learned Single Judge, thereafter, dealt with the issue relating to

the manipulation of marks in the personal interview and again

painstakingly examined several cases where awarding of marks was



obviously manipulated with obliteration and overwriting. The learned Single

Judge pointed out the awfulness of such manipulations in the following:-

“25. Coming now to the allegation of manipulation of marks in the personal interview, I will start with the case of the respondent No. 11. This respondent was given 10 marks for her qualification as BA and another 5 marks for her additional qualification of B.Ed. There is no dispute about her aforesaid qualification. But it is not comprehensible as to how she has been awarded 9 marks under the head of “Experience” when she had hardly worked for one year when she applied for the post and when the full mark for experience as contractual teacher is 7 marks. Similarly, it is also not possible to know, in the absence of explanation by the respondent authorities, as to how she was awarded 17 marks out of 20 marks allotted under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” when she barely had a practical teaching experience of one year. In the case of respondent No. 18 (Shri Loosar Lanong), though he had worked as a teacher for hardly six years, he was awarded 10 marks for his experience as contractual teacher: the maximum mark allotted for this experience is 7 marks. Besides, over-writings of marks are found in the columns relating to this head and the Grand Total. There is thus considerable force in the allegations of manipulations in the awarding of marks to this respondent. In the case of respondent No. 20, though there is no evidence of teaching experience, contractual or otherwise, yet she was awarded 10 marks under this head. In the absence of evidence of experience, it is difficult to understand as to how she was awarded 18 marks out of 20 marks under the heading “Sustainability & Micro-teaching Ability”. Besides, there is also evidence of overwritings in the compilation sheet pertaining to this respondent.

26. As for respondent No. 21, she has no teaching experience whatsoever, yet she was awarded 10 marks under the head of experience as contractual teacher and another 18 marks under the head of “Sustainability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. In the case of respondent 59, she was a Teacher of Lumpyrdi Govt. L.P. School only since 2007, yet she has been awarded 10 marks under the head of experience as a contractual Teacher and another 20 marks (full mark) under the head of :Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. This is thus another case of manipulation of marks. Then, there is the case of respondent 87, who is not a graduate, but passed SET and has a teaching experience of hardly four years, but was awarded 10 marks under head of “Experience” and 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. That apart, there are also overwritings and erasure marks in the related column of the compilation sheet. In the case of respondent 67 also, he had worked only for barely for two years, yet, he was awarded 7 marks under the head “Experience” and another 16 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability”. There is also evidence of overwriting and erasure in the related column of the compilation sheet. In the case of respondent 68 also, there is evidence of overwritings and/or erasure mark in the marks pertaining to experience and the grand total. There is also evidence of erasure marks/manipulation with respect to the marks awarded to the respondent No. 70 concerning suitability and micro-teaching experience ability: she barely had a teaching experience of one year. In the case of respondent 71, she hardly had a teaching experience of 2 years, but was awarded 8 marks under the head of “experience” and another 17 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. There is also evidence of overwriting marks in the related entries.

27. As for the respondent No. 7, there is no evidence that she is a



graduate or had passed SET examination or has teaching experience whatsoever, yet she was awarded 10 mark for higher qualification and ten marks for experience as contractual teacher and another 20 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Besides, there is evidence of overwritings and/or interpolations in the compilation sheet concerning the related entries. In the case of the respondent No. 76, there is evidence of overwriting/manipulation in the compilation sheet with respect to the heads of “Experience” and the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability”. As for the respondent No. 80, he hardly has a teaching experience for one year, yet he was awarded 9 marks against this entry and another sixteen marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Besides, there is evidence of manipulation in his score sheet pertaining to this head. Similarly, the respondent No. 85 barely has a teaching experience of one year, yet he was awarded 8 marks under the head of contractual teaching and another 19 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Likewise, the respondent No. 86 had a teaching experience of hardly one year, yet she was awarded ten marks under the head of contractual teaching and another 16 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. Moreover, it is noticed that numerous overwritings are found in the compilation sheet against the related entries. Respondent No. 88 also has hardly any teaching experience at all, but was awarded 7 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. There is also evidence of manipulations in the compilation sheet with respect to the entries relating “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability”. So is the case of respondent 89, who had only two years of teaching experience, yet was awarded 20 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. In the case of respondent 90, she has a teaching experience of less than one month, but was awarded 10 marks under the head “Experience” and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason.

28. Coming now to respondent 91, she also had a teaching experience of hardly two years, yet she was awarded 10 marks under his head and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. Moreover, there is evidence of interpolations and overwritings in the compilation sheet against these entries. This then takes me to the case of respondent 94, who has no teaching experience at all, but has been awarded 10 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Besides, there is evidence of manipulation of marks against the related entries. In the case of respondent 30 also, there is no evidence of her having any teaching experience, yet was awarded 10 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 11 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. So is the case of respondent 32, who apparently had a teaching experience of hardly two years, but was awarded 7 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. Similarly, respondent 33 had a teaching experience of hardly one year, yet she was awarded 10 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. So is the case of respondent 49, who did not have any teaching experience, but was awarded 8 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 20 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Similarly, respondent 57 has hardly a teaching experience of 1 year, but has been awarded 9 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 19 marks under the



head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. In the case of respondent 66, she did have any teaching experience, yet was awarded 8 marks for contractual teaching experience and another 20 marks (full mark) under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. As for respondent 75, she hardly had an experience of 4 years, yet was awarded 10 marks for contractual teaching experience and another 16 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason. Besides, there is evidence of over-writings in the compilation sheet against the related entries. So is the case of respondent 92, who has a teaching experience of hardly 3 years, but has been awarded 7 marks for contractual teaching experience and another 18 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent basis. Moreover, there is evidence of erasures and over-writings in the markings of the related entries in respect of this respondent. Similarly, the respondent 43 has an experience of hardly five years without any additional qualification, but has been awarded 8 marks for contractual teaching experience and another 20 marks (full mark) under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any rhyme or reason. So is the case of respondent 45, who has barely a contractual teaching experience of three years, but has been awarded 10 marks for contractual teaching experience and another 16 marks under the head of “Suitability & Micro-teaching Ability” without any apparent reason.”

The learned Single Judge further considered yet another aspect, of

jacking up of marks, as raised in WP (C) No.51 (SH) of 2010 in relation to

the contractual teachers as also awarding of marks beyond maximum 7

marks, as contemplated by Clause 30 of the notification dated 24.11.2008.

The learned Single Judge found that in substantial number of cases, the

contractual teachers were awarded the marks ranging from 8 to 10 and

tabulated all their names and marks. The learned Single Judge yet further

took note of the fact that several of the candidates with much lesser

experience ranging between 1 to 4 years were awarded higher marks

whereas, one of the petitioners, who had been working for about 8 years,

was awarded only 2 marks. The learned Single Judge also referred to the

rather intriguing reply of the respondents as regards stark discrepancies in

awarding of marks as under:-

“31. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the following selected candidates, namely, Sumarbha Dkhar, Preacher Sungoh, Ridaka Lamar, Margina Shylla, Dafodil Era Laloo, Dolinda Pohleng, Libianta Suchiang, Rita Phawa, Banysa Kya, Prima Donna Patwet, Loosar Lanong, Srunika Dkhar, Awawima Shullai, among others, who hardly worked as teachers, have all secured marks ranging from 8 and 10 marks for experience. Again, Smt. Farida Kyndai, who was shown to work from April, 2005, was given only 3 marks, but Valentina Deigratia Chullai, who was working only from 25-9-2008, was awarded 6 marks for experience.



Similarly, Smt. Chika Sadap, who did not have any experience, was awarded 6 marks, whereas Smt. Niewbiang Ting, who had teaching experience w.e.f. 19-5-2005, got the same mark. It is interesting to note the reply of the respondent authorities, which is found at paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which reads thus:

“10. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition I beg to state that the petitioner may have served for a period of 4 years and 8 months, however, I beg to state that the petitioner may have served for seven years but there were also other candidates who have served and did not qualify in the test. The marks allotted under column for experience is a combination of both experience and practice teaching for which a maximum of 10 marks was allotted. The idea behind keeping this combination is that those who have experience are supposed to be good in practice teaching and expected to do well and secure high marks.

There were also other category of candidates who had passed B.Ed., D.Ed., BTC trained who did equally well along with those experience teacher, hence it cannot be denied that those who secured high marks with less number of experience are not deserving to be allotted with that marks. All marks allotted by the Committee are entirely based on the performance of the candidates as well as Certificates produced by them at the time of interview. It may also be noted that the Committee have allotted marks to all the candidates within the prescribed 50.”

The learned Single Judge observed that the respondents were

conveniently fudging the principal issue raised by the petitioners, namely

manner of undue award of marks contrary to the rules framed by the

respondents themselves.

The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up the matter involved in

WP (C) No.52 (SH) of 2010 and, again, found the case of undue award of

marks towards teaching experience. The learned Single Judge thereafter

took up WP (C) No.408 (SH) of 2010 where, again, several candidates

were awarded higher marks towards teaching experience even beyond the

permissible maximum 7. In this case, the learned Judge also referred to

the fact that there were two such candidates whose names did not appear

in the list of applicants and yet they were appointed; and found

questionable the response of the respondents that those candidates were

subsequently allowed to appear on the basis of their representations. The

learned Single Judge also referred to various other writ petitions where the



petitioners had been awarded lesser marks towards teaching experience.

In the last, the learned Single Judge took up WP (C) No.182 (SH) of 2010

and found considerable force in the case of the petitioner about

manipulation and gross irregularities; and with apposite examples, arrived

at the prima facie satisfaction of strong case in favour of the petitioners in

the following:-

“….. In WP(C) No. 182(SH) of 2010, there are 18 petitioners and 52 private respondents, who did not contest the writ petition despite proper service of notices upon them. The petitioners are questioning the propriety of the selection of candidates for Assistant Teachers of LP Schools under Amlarem Civil Sub-Division, Jaintia Hills District. According to the petitioners, a number of irregularities and illegalities have been committed selecting the private respondents by manipulating their marks, the details whereof are given in Paper Mark-“A” annexed to the writ petition. For example, Smt. N. Kongwang, who did not pass SET or BTC or DIET or B.Ed. was not eligible to apply for the post, but was selected. Besides, she was given 10 marks when she passed BA examination only in 3rd Division. Similarly, in the case of Smt. R. Gashnga, she is a graduate in Arts with simple pass, but did not clear SET or BTC or DIET or B.Ed. examinations and was, therefore, ineligible to apply for the post. But she was awarded 8 marks for BTC/DIET, another 9 marks for a teaching experience of 5 years and yet another 19 marks under the head of micro-teaching ability. Again, in the case of Smt. M. Rasmut, she had a teaching experience of hardly 2 years, but was awarded 10 marks under the head of “Experience” and another 17 marks for practical teaching without any rhyme or reason. Likewise, Smt. S. Lyngdoh (Speciality Lyngdoh), she is not eligible to apply for the post, inasmuch as she is a simple pass BA and without clearing SET or BTC or DIET or B.Ed. She was awarded 10 marks for (not?) clearing SET and another 19 marks for practical teaching when she only have a teaching experience of 4 years, for which she was also awarded 4 marks. So is the case of Shri Harkin Suting, who did not clear SET or BTC/DIET or B.ED examinations and did not also have any teaching experience, he was awarded 10 marks for teaching experience and 17 marks for practical teaching without any apparent basis. This is just a tip of an iceberg. There is considerable force in the case of the petitioners that there have been manipulations and gross irregularities in the entire selection process. These allegations made in Paper Mark “A” have remained unchallenged or not denied or otherwise not satisfactorily explained by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition. Besides, a number of selected candidates are apparently overage, yet they were selected for the appointments and in fact have now been appointed without relaxing their age. Though this Court has no machinery to investigate manipulations/fraud of this magnitude, yet it is quite satisfied that a strong prima cases have been clearly made out by the petitioners in all the writ petitions.”


The learned Single Judge referred to the principles in Tata Cellular

v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651 as regards the parameters of judicial

review of administrative actions and thereafter, expressed in no uncertain

terms that there was a strong prima facie case of massive irregularities



and manipulations and the matter was of a gross wrong. The learned

Single Judge, even while pointing out that what he had referred were only

the examples and were just of „tip of an iceberg‟, refrained from taking

upon the role of Commission of Inquiry and found it imperative that an

effective inquiry in relation to the entire process be carried out by the CBI.

The learned Single Judge, while referring to the case of Union of India O.

Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 observed and held as under:-

“36. In my opinion, as there are strong prima facie evidence of massive irregularities, arbitrariness and manipulations, it can be said with a high degree of certainty that something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires the intervention of this Court. In a case of this nature, this Court cannot fold its hand and shut the door of this Court to leave the petitioners to fend for themselves: they cannot do so for obvious reasons. Such a course of action will result in perpetuation of injustice and gross irregularities. Such a course of action will render this Court impotent in the eye of the public. Such course of action will erode the confidence of the public in the superior courts, which has been established to rein the arbitrary exercise of powers exercised by the executive authorities. In other words, the very existence of the judicial system will be called into question if the petitioners are told off at the gate when serious allegations, which appear to have a ring of truth, have been made against the selection proceeding of the Selection Board. Numerous undeserving and unmeritorious candidates have been selected and eventually given appointments. Conversely, many meritorious and deserving candidates like some of the writ petitioners herein appear to have been arbitrarily deprived of their right to appointments to the posts of Assistant Teachers. It is, however, contended by Mr. K.S. Kynjing, the learned Advocate General, that most of the writ petitions suffer from defect of parties inasmuch as necessary parties, namely, the selected candidates who have now been given the appointments, are not impleaded as party respondents and is, therefore, not maintainable. When there is strong prima facie evidence of gross irregularities and illegalities in the conduct of the recruitment process, it is virtually impossible to pick out person who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases, it will neither be feasible nor necessary to implead all the selectees. This is the view taken by the Apex Court in Union of India O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, a case cited by Mr. M.F Qureshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the same is reproduced below:

“8. In our view the nature and extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is to widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the person who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.

37. Though the observations extracted above were rendered in the context of illegalities and irregularities already established in the inquiry



made by CBI, in my judgment, the underlying principles will be applicable in the present context. The manipulations and mischief played by the Selection Board are apparently widespread and pervasive, and to insist that the petitioners implead all the selectees will amount to taking hyper-technical view of the matter. The established procedures for awarding marks were found to be given a go bye. The alleged gross irregularities and illegalities I have already pointed out earlier, are some of the examples and are just a tip of an iceberg. …… In my opinion, once a strong prima facie case of massive irregularities/illegalities and mischief is made out by the petitioners, as is the case here, I have no alternative but to entertain the writ petition. Nevertheless, this Court cannot take upon itself the role of a commission of inquiry – a knight roaming at will with a view to destroying evil wherever it is found. That apart, this court has no machinery of its own to probe such presumed mischief and gross irregularities. For this reason, it is not advisable to quash the entire impugned selection process and the consequential appointments at this stage: such course of action can be resorted to only when the allegations are established in an inquiry. Therefore, the need of the hour is to order a fair and an impartial but effective inquiry into the entire selection processes culminating in the appointments of the selectees under challenge in these writ petitions. This can be realised only if the inquiry is conducted by the Central Criminal Bureau of Investigation, which is heretofore independent of, and immune from, interference by the State Government. The fact that ordering of such an inquiry by CBI is permissible can be seen from the decisions of the Apex Court in Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165 and O. Chakradar case (supra).”


The learned Single Judge also dealt with the submissions of the

learned Advocate General made with reference to the decision of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh:

(2008) 4 SCC 619 that accepting the submissions of referring the matter to

CBI for inquiry would amount to the Court assuming the role of a fact-

finding commission, and the Court should rather restrict itself to the

pleadings of the parties; and rejected such contentions with reference to

the decision in Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165

while observing as under:-

“39. I have read and re-read the foregoing extract, but cannot persuade myself to hold that those observations are applicable to the peculiar facts of the instant cases. Firstly, the petitioners have specifically pleaded the details of the manipulations in the compilation sheets made by the Selection Board as given in Paper Mark – “A” (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition in WP(C) No. 182(SH) of 2010, Paper Mark – “A” and “B” of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 267(SH) of 2010, Paper Mark-“A”, Paper Mark-“B” and Paper Mark-“C” of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 106(SH) of 2010, so and so forth. These specific pleadings were conveniently overlooked by the respondent authorities in their affidavits-in- opposition. True, those allegations by themselves may not be enough to quash the impugned selection processes, but are certainly sufficient to raise presumptive evidence of manipulations and mischiefs in the



recruitment processes warranting the inquiry being ordered by me. Moreover, the original compilation sheets produced by the respondent authorities substantially corroborate the allegations of the petitioners. Before parting, I wish to remind the respondent authorities the following observations of the Apex Court in Krishen Yadav case (supra):

“19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.”


After having thus examined the basic factual aspects and several of

the examples unmistakably showing large scale manipulations; and with

reference to the applicable legal principles, the learned Single Judge

adopted the course of referring the matter to the CBI for inquiry into the

allegations of the petitioners; and directed that the authorities concerned

shall take appropriate action on the basis of the inquiry report, which may

include cancellation of the entire selection process and all the

appointments made. The learned Single Judge concluded on the writ

petitions with the following directions:-

“40. For what has been stated in the foregoing, all the writ petitions are allowed. The CBI is, therefore, directed to inquire into the allegations of the petitioners in Paper Mark-“A”, Paper Mark-“B” and Paper Mark-“C” annexed to WP(C) No. 106(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 88(SH) of 2010, the allegations in paragraphs No. 5 and 9 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 52(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 13 and 16 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 408(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 5,6 and 7 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 51(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 15 and 16 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 15(SH) 2010, the allegations made in Paper Mark-“A”, Paper Mark-“B” and Paper Mark-“C” of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 267(SH) of 2010, the allegations made in paragraphs No. 5,6 and 7 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 50(SH) 2010 and the allegations made in Paper Mark-“A” and page 86 of the writ petition in WP(C) No. 182(SH) of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and submit the inquiry report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The original files relating to the DPC proceedings bearing No. DEME-2/Per/2009 (Amlarem), No. DEME-8A/Per/2009 (Jowai), No. DEME-1/Per/2009/1 (Shillong), No. DEME/GA/8/Appt/2008 (Jowai), No. DEME/GA/Appt/7/2008 (Dedengre) and No. DEME-3/Per/2009 (Tura) shall be kept by the Registry under sealed cover and shall be handed over to the CBI as and when required after duly obtaining their acknowledgment thereof. On the basis of



the inquiry report so submitted, the respondent authorities shall take necessary and consequential actions on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the CBI including cancellation of the entire selection processes and the appointments already made in connection therewith and re-starting of the recruitment process to fill up the posts in question within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the State-respondents, they are at liberty to approach this Court again for further and appropriate orders. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs. Communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong for necessary compliance. It is expected that the State-respondents extend cooperation to the CBI for smooth and effective inquiry into the matters.”

DISPOSAL OF INTRA-COURT APPEALS ON 16.08.2012 - DIRECTIONS

FOR INQUIRY BY COMMITTEE TO BE CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE

GOVERNMENT

The aforesaid order dated 21.10.2011, as passed by the learned

Single Judge was questioned before the Division Bench of Gauhati High

Court in nine appeals by the State and three other appeals by the private

respondents. Be it noticed that before decision of these appeals, the CBI

had completed the inquiry and submitted its report to the Court in a sealed

cover on 05.03.2012. The appeals were thereafter taken up for decision on

16.08.2012. Though the judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.08.2012

has already been set aside by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court but, the report

of HLSC constituted under the said judgment of the Division Bench is to be

taken into consideration for a fresh decision of these matters. Therefore,

and in the overall circumstances, it appears necessary that the salient

features of the said judgment dated 16.08.2012 be also taken note of.

On a bare look at the judgment dated 16.08.2012, it is apparent that

in these intra-court appeals, the core findings of the learned Single Judge

were not put to contention but the principal submissions on behalf of the

State, equally adopted by the private appellants, had been that in the given

set of facts and circumstances, the matter ought not to have been referred

for an inquiry by CBI but ought to have been left open for appropriate

inquiry and proceedings by the employer i.e., the State itself. The Division



Bench briefly took note of the directions of the learned Single Judge as

also the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the State with

reference to some of the allegations in the writ petitions and reply thereto.

Thereafter, the Division Bench referred to a part of the finding of the

learned Single Judge in the following:-

“12. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the allegations and counter allegations regarding the irregularity and/or otherwise of the selection process made in the other writ petitions. Traversing through the allegations and counter allegations the learned Single Judge has recorded as follows:-

“In my opinion, as there are strong prima facie evidence of massive irregularities, arbitrariness and manipulations, it can be said with a high degree of certainty that something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires the intervention of this Court.”

The Division Bench specifically took note of the submissions on the

part of the appellant-State that they were not putting challenge to any

finding of fact recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge

because, according to them, the learned Single Judge had not come to

any definite finding regarding the veracity and genuineness of the

allegations. The Division Bench also took note of the submissions that the

observations about the “presumptive evidence of manipulations”, do not

justify the directions impugned; and referred to various decisions cited on

behalf of the appellant-State, including the one in Inderpreet Singh

Kahlon v. State of Punjab: (2006) 11 SCC 356 and that in State of W.B.

v. Comm. for Protection of Democratic Rights, W.B.: (2010) 3 SCC 571

and again noted the assertions on the part of the State Government in the

following:-

“18. Mr. Dey has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case were rival allegations regarding the legality, fairness or otherwise of the Selection Process has been raised and no definite conclusion regarding the veracity of the same could be arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the facts on record, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inderpreet (supra) was squarely applicable in the instant case. This was a case, Mr. Dey asserts, were the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department should have been directed to re-scrutinise the records to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations by constituting a High Level Independent Committee of its officials against whom there is no allegation and thereby



to take all collective measures as may be required and permissible under law. Mr. Dey also submits that the Appellant State Government is still ready and willing to undertake such exercise if the Court so mandates. Answering to a pointed query by this Court as to why the State Government has not so long undertaken such process till date suo motu if it was open and willing to the proposition of such re-scrutiny of Selection Process, Mr. Dey answered that the very nature of direction rendered by the learned Single Judge virtually diminishing and limiting the authority of the State Government to that of an implementing agency of the CBI inquiry report had prevented the Appellant State from undertaking any independent exercise, more so, in view of the fact that the present bunch of Appeals preferred by the State on the question of very legality of the direction for CBI enquiry has been sub judice before us.”


The Division Bench also took note of the submissions on the part of

the contesting respondents i.e., the writ petitioners who were seeking to

justify the order for an inquiry by the CBI and, while rejecting such

contentions, accepted the submissions on the part of the State but at the

same time, found it just and proper that the report already made by CBI

may not be allowed to go waste. The Division Bench formed the opinion

that cause of justice would be met if the Principal Secretary to the

Government of Meghalaya in its Education Department was directed to

constitute a „High Level Scrutiny Committee of Officials without any stigma‟

to scrutinize the records regarding the candidature of „selected and un-

selected candidates‟, within the ambit and scope of the writ petitions and

for appropriate action. However, the Division Bench also directed that

while undertaking the exercise, the authorities would take assistance and

guidance of the finding, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI; and further

indicated the duty of the State Government that no officer or authority,

howsoever high, was to be spared, if deliberate complicity was found in the

matter of “vitiating” or “otherwise interfering” with the selection process.

The Division Bench observed and directed as under:-

“23. We have given our anxious considerations to the attending facts in these appeals, the rival submissions of the parties as well as other materials on record. As the Appellants have restricted their challenge to the specific directions of CBI enquiry and the consequent steps to be taken by them, as indicated in the concluding paragraphs of the Judgment in Appeal, we are refraining from discussing in details the factual matrix as



well as the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the parties in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge as those are not material for the purpose of deciding the merit of the order of CBI enquiry and the consequent steps directed by the learned Single Judge. True it is that the allegations howsoever wide spread or serious in nature could attain only the standard of presumptive evidence, as has been found by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 39 of the judgment. Sitting in Appeal we are not inclined to disturb that part of the finding, more so, in the absence of any specific challenge to the same even by the writ appellants. 24. Now, the question is, given the above standard of presumptive evidence of allegations, whether the order of CBI enquiry rendered by the learned Single Judge conform to the parameters laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in various judgments including the Full Bench decision in State of WB Vs. Comm. for Protection of Democratic Rights, WB [ ( 2010) 3 SCC 571] and the judgments subsequent thereto. The power of Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of ordering CBI enquiry is now well decided. While the power of the Writ Court to order such enquiry has been affirmed by the Apex Court, the same has been indicated to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases where the life and liberty of citizens cannot be protected in any other manner and the rule of law as well as the role of State Police Machinery appear to have fallen apart thereby giving rise to flagrant violation of cherished fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The cases must openly demonstrate allegation of commission of cognizable offences infringing the life, liberty and property at the hand of State Machinery or otherwise with the State Police being mute spectators or biased perpetrators. The case at hand is definitely not of that nature. We are also inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant Government that there has been no specific allegations of involvement of any official of the department in the series of allegations, far less any instance of any of the Writ Petitioners going to State Police to register a case of any cognizable offence or consequent failure of state Police to act in terms of law. It is thus an unavoidable conclusion that the situations contemplated in the judgments referred to above by Mr. Dey warranting a CBI enquiry is by and large absent in the instant case. 25. Even at the sake of repetition we consciously remind ourselves that an order of CBI enquiry bypassing the State Police on the face of objection by the State Government can be ordered only in a rare case of exceptional nature where the judicial conscience of the court is shaken on the set of attending facts leaving no other options open, but to bringing the Central Agency against the will of the State Government for upholding the supremacy of the Rule of Law as established by our Constitution. Given the above parameters, the case at hand is not of such nature. There is no primafacie proof of commission of any cognizable offence by any specific person or authority, there is no semblance of element of the failure of the State Police to investigate any such offence in as much as no party before us could demonstrate any approach having been made by it to the State Police. A stray remark of some NGO having approached police in this regard, as sought to be impressed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein, do not at all impress us. Further, the instances of destruction of records so as to debar a judicial inquisition or any other such exercise, as evident in the case of Krishan Yadav (supra) is totally absent here. Rather it is evident on record that the State Government has faithfully preserved and produced all documents pertaining to the selection process challenged in the Writ Petitions before this Court for judicial scrutiny. Hence, the questions raised by the Appellants regarding the legality of the order of CBI enquiry, as made by the learned Single Judge has to be answered in favour of the Appellants which we hereby do.



26. But having held as above, the fact of the CBI enquiry as ordered by the learned Single Judge having been completed by the said investigating agency and the further fact of the submission of the report before the Court as well as transmission of the said CBI enquiry report in sealed cover under subsequent order of the learned Single Judge has not avoided our attention. Under the given facts and circumstances even if we have held that the direction for a CBI enquiry in the instant case was not proper or warranted, the larger question is to what extent it causes injustice to any party. The arguments of Mr. Dey that the direction of the learned Single Judge in the matter of ordering CBI enquiry being void ab initio and impermissible in law, the outcome of such direction even by way of a report of CBI cannot attain sanctity of law and hence liable to be discarded, cannot convince us. At this point it is also worthy to note that half-hearted manner in which the Appellant State had pursued the Appeal. Although the Appeals were filed in November, 2011 and notices were issued thereon in the same month, no serious attempt was made by the State Government Appellant to press either the Appeal or the stay prayer against CBI enquiry. It was only after the CBI enquiry report had been filed before the learned Single Judge that the Appellant moved for prayers against the said CBI enquiry report and visible efforts were made by its Counsel on record to get the matters posted out of turn for early hearing of this Court. The contents of CBI enquiry report is not known to any party or this Court. Hence, it would be presumptuous and impermissible for us to delve into the legality or otherwise of the contents of such report at this stage. But an exercise of investigation having been undertaken under a judicial order of this Court at the expense of public exchequer by the CBI cannot be and should not be allowed to go waste. 27. Accordingly, we hold that even if the direction to order a CBI enquiry was not proper under the given facts and circumstances of the present case, due to the lapse of time and subsequent occurrences when the CBI enquiry report has already come to life and existence, we are not inclined to brush aside and quash the said report at this stage. At this point we also take note of the fact that the writ appeals filed by the State Government also do not specifically contain any ground or prayer for quashing such CBI enquiry report. 28. Having held as above we now take up submission No. D (supra) of Mr Dey, learned counsel for the State Appellants. Taking cue from the judgment of Inderpreet (supra) of the Apex Court we hold that the entire gamut of selection process in the entire State of Meghalaya being not brought for judicial scrutiny, the exercise of the court, the investigating agency as well as the consequence action of the executive in the State Government has to be limited to the boundary of specific selection processes of particular territorial zones and the allegations in respect of particular candidatures, selected or unselected. It is the duty of the Court to see that the cases of tainted candidates are segregated from the non-tainted. This is essentially a job of expertise assigned normally to the employer. Under the circumstances where there is no specific allegations of any bias against any authority of the employer, i.e., the Education Department of the Government of Meghalaya, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Dey, the Appellant‟s counsel to the extent of the high level independent Scrutiny Committee may be directed to be constituted by the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department to review and re-scrutinise the records pertaining to the candidature of the selected and non-selected candidates involved within the parameters of all the Writ Petitions. Answering to a specific question from the Court, Mr. Dey disclosed that such an action could not have been undertaken hitherto by the authorities in view of the direction contained in Paragraph



40 of the Judgment in Appeal limiting the role of the authorities, to quote Mr. Dey, “merely to an implementing agency of CBI report”. 29. Hence, taking into consideration the above and by balancing the circumstances, in our opinion, cause of justice would be met, if the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in the Education Department is directed to constitute a High Level Scrutiny Committee of Officials without any stigma to scrutinize and review the records regarding the candidature of the selected and unselected candidates involved within the ambit and scope of connected writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 106 (SH)/2010, 51 (SH)/2010, 52(SH)/2010, 88 (SH)/2010, 408(SH)/2010, 267(SH)/2010, 50(SH)/2010,15(SH)/2010 and 182 (SH)/2010 so as to ascertain the legality/basis of such selection or non-selections, as the case may be, and thereafter by segregating the tainted candidates from the non-tainted, take appropriate actions in accordance with law to offer appointment/confirm appointments of duly selected candidates whether already appointed or not and also terminate the candidature/appointment of the ineligible candidates and appoint eligible candidates including the writ petitioner, if found suitable. While undertaking this exercise the authorities shall also take beneficial assistance and guidance of the findings, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI in its enquiry report now lying at the custody of the State Authorities. Needless to say, it will also be the duty of the State Government not to spare any officer or authority, howsoever high he may be, if any deliberate complicity is found in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process. 30. We accordingly direct as above. The entire exercise ordered above shall now be completed expeditiously and not later than 6 months from the date of this judgment. The related directions contained in paragraph 40 of the Judgment & Order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to the aforesaid effect.”


In compliance of the order aforesaid, the concerned Principal

Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in its Education Department

constituted the High Level Scrutiny Committee that submitted its report on

29.07.2013. As noticed, prior to that, the report of CBI had already been

submitted on 05.03.2012 and now, these matters are to be examined in

the light of these two reports and the submissions of the parties. However,

before referring to these reports and the varying contentions, a few

aspects relating to the matter before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court may also

be taken note of.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

It is noticed that in its report dated 29.07.2013, the so-called High

Level Scrutiny Committee constituted by the concerned Principal Secretary

to the Government of Meghalaya found several cases of manipulations



and tampering with the score sheets (apart from various other aspects- as

shall be referred later); and recommended for termination of the services of

tainted candidates, and for retention of untainted candidates as also for

appointment of untainted candidates, who were otherwise found eligible.

Pursuant to this report, steps were taken by the Director, School Education

and Literacy to terminate the services of 246 candidates in the month of

February 2014. This led to some of the terminated candidates approaching

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, challenging their termination orders along with

the judgment dated 16.08.2012. On 21.04.2014, operation of the Judgment

dated 16.08.2012 was stayed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)

No. 11357 of 2014. A few more terminated as also unsuccessful

candidates sought impleadment in the pending SLP but by the order dated

02.09.2016, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court only extended them a liberty to

express their views at the hearing as interveners.

However, when the matter was finally taken up by the Honb‟le

Supreme Court, it was suggested on behalf of the State that services of

several candidates had been terminated and such a fact was disputed by

the opposite parties. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court formed the view that the

High Court need to have a fresh look at the matter in the light of two

reports, of CBI and HLSC, and after hearing the parties. Hence, while

setting aside the judgment impugned, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court remitted

the matter to this Court and, accordingly, these appeals have been revived

for decision afresh in view of the order dated 24.03.2017 so passed by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4565 of 2017 (arising out of

SLP No. 11357 of 2014) that has been reproduced at the outset in the

preliminary part of this judgment.

THE INQUIRY REPORT OF CBI

It shall now be apposite to take note of the salient features of the



inquiry report by CBI as we get down to brass tacks in re-examination of

the entire matter, per the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is

noticed that the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong immediately took

up compliance of the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Single

Judge in these matters and registered a case bearing No.

PESHG2011A002 dated 11.11.2011 and also made a request to the High

Court for extension of time for submission of the inquiry report, which was

duly granted by the Court; and thereafter, the CBI‟s inquiry report dated

05.03.2012 was submitted in the Court.

In this report dated 05.03.2012, after taking note of the allegations

about manipulation of the score sheets of personal interview and inclusion

of the over-age candidates, a detailed reference was made to the

allegations in the papers and paragraphs as indicated by the learned

Single Judge in the operative part of the order dated 21.10.2011. The CBI

also referred to the distribution of marks as also the composition of the

Selection Committees etc. in the said notification dated 24.11.2008. The

CBI further took note of the number of candidates, who had applied and

who had appeared in the interview and then, noted in the first place that at

some of the Centres, the Board taking the interview was different from the

Board which was formed by the Government. The CBI extensively reported

on this aspect, not only in regard to the four Centres involved in the writ

petitions, but also in regard to the fifth centre viz., Dadenggre as follows:

“4.10 Enquiry has further transpired that meanwhile for interviewing the candidates, who applied for the post of teacher of L.P. School, interview board was formed. However the board, so formed, for interviewing the candidates, did not take the interview of the candidates in all the aforesaid centres. The detail regarding the board as formed for the interview and the board which took the interview of the candidate, may be gisted as follows:

Sl. No.

Name of the Centre

Officially nominated Board Board took the interview/detailed to take the interview finally.

1 Jowai Shri C.Laloo, MCS, EAC Shri C.Laloo, MCS, EAC

Smt. AI.Lyngdoh Dy. DEME Shri S.S. Syiemlieh, MCS

Smt. M.Lakiang, Lecturer, Shri H.S. Diengdoh, MCS



DIET, Thadlaskein

Smt. A.P.Bamon, H/M, Jowai Govt. UP School

Smt.A.I. Lyngdoh, Dy. Director

Smt. Aiom P.Bamon, H/M, Jowai Govt. U.P. School

Shri W.Wansweet, Sr. Lecturer, DIET, Thadlaskein

2 Shillong Smt. C.D.Lyngwa, MCS, EAC, Chairman

Shri Andrea Sun, Dy. Director, DEME as Member Secretary

Shri Andrea Sun, Dy.Director, DEME as Member Secretary

R.Rymbai, i/c Principal, DIET, Sohra, Member

R.Rymbai, i/c Principal, DIET, Sohra, Member

Shri R.Iawphniaw, H/M, Mawlai Govt.U.P. School, Member

Shri R.Iawphniaw, H/M, Mawlai Govt.U.P. School, Member

3 Tura Shri W.P. Marak, MCS, Chairman

Shri W.P. Marak, MCS, Chairman

Shri J.S. Khonglah, Dy.DEME, Member Secretary

Shri J.S.Khonglah, Dy.DEME, Member Secretary

Smt. J.G.Momin, Lecturer, DIET, Tura, Member

Smt. J.G.Momin, Lecturer, DIET, Tura, Member

Shri Sensible Marak, Headmaster, Selsella Govt. U.P. School, Member

Shri Sensible Marak, Headmaster, Selsella Govt. U.P. School, Member

4 Amlarem Shri B.Mawlong, MCS, EAC, Chairman

Shri B.Mawlong, MCS, EAC, Chairman

Smt. A.I.Lyngdoh, Dy. DEME, Member Secretary

Smt. A.I.Lyngdoh, Dy. DEME, Member Secretary

Sh.W.Wansweet, Lecturer, DIET, Thadlasein, Member

Smt. Warjri, Principal, DIET, Thadlaskein, Member

Shri C.Pohkurnu, H/M, Tarangblang Govt. UP School, Member

Shri C.Pohkurnu, H/M, Tarangblang Govt. UP School, Member

5 Dadenggiri Shri P.K.Boro, MCS, EAC, Chairman

Shri P.K.Boro, MCS, EAC, Chairman

Shri A.Sun, Joint DEME, Member Secretary

Smt. Kynjing, Dey, DEME, Member Secretary

Smt. A.B.Momin, Lecturer DIET, Tura, Member

Shri Challang R.Marak Lecturer DIET, Tura, Member

Shri S.Marak, H/M Selsella Govt. UP School, Member

Shri S.Marak, H/M Selsella Govt. UP School, Member

4.11 It may be seen in the above noted paragraph that the board, which took the interview at the above noted centres were different from the



board, which was formed by the Govt. In this regard during enquiry in respect of board, which took interview at the following centres, the following fact has been found:

I. Jowai :

Dy. Commissioner, Jowai has authorized/directed the above three MCS Officers of his District to attend the interview Board on the aforesaid dates, as per the convenience of the Officers concerned and his administration. II. Shillong Sadar :

As per letter No. DSC.4/97-98/78 dtd. 24th February, 2009 of the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, it is found that Smt. C.D.Lyngwa, MCS was nominated by the Dy. Commissioner to be Member of the said Selection Committee but Smt. C.D. Lyngwa, EAC did not attend the interview even on a single day and she was reportedly replaced by Smt. Caramai Kharkongor, MCS to act as Chairman. No office order/notification was issued regarding aforesaid change. Furthermore, enquiry has transpired that during interview, Smt. Caramai Kharkongor, MCS also did not attend the board on a single day. Shri Andreas Sun, Dy. Director, DEME, acted as Chairman as well as Member Secretary. Another Board Member Smt. R.Rymbai, i/c Principal, DIET, Sohra also could not attend the interview and nominated her staff Shri Jakob Myrten, Lecturer in her place. However, Shri Jakob Myrten also could not attend the interview in all the days and two other Lecturers, viz. Shri K Dympep and Mrs. A.Sohliya represented in his place on 2 dates each without having any proper authority. III. Amlarem : On member of the board, which took interview of the candidates at Amlarem was not initially nominated by the Govt. Said Member namely Smt. Warjri, Principal, DIET, Thadlaskein substituted Shri W.Wansweet, who was initially nominated by the Govt. IV. Tura : The board which took interview of the candidates at Tura on 19/5/2009 to 27/5/2009 was nominated by the Govt. Thus, there is no ground for considering the said board as well as its decision as invalid. V. Dadenggiri : Two members of the board, which took interview at Tura namely Smt. Kynjing, Dy.DEME, Member Secretary and Shri Challang R.Marak, Lecturer, DIET, Tura, were not initially nominated. They substituted Shri A.Sun, Joint DEME, Member Secretary and Smt. A.B.Momin, Lecturer DIET, Tura, Member who were nominated initially.”

Thereafter, several discrepancies in the methodology adopted in

awarding of the marks by the different interview boards were indicated but

the astonishing part as noticed by the CBI with reference to the statement

of the members of the interview board about tampering of the marks was

pointed out in the following:

“4.13 Enquiry has revealed that at the time of submission of the score sheets by the board, there was no tampering of marks, over-writings, etc. Members of all the 5 boards were surprised which the score sheets containing huge tampering, manipulations, overwritings (using white-fluid) were shown without any initials. The Interview Board Members stated that



they did not make such tampering, over-writings, etc. at the time of interview rather they submitted the score sheets with clear shape and

figures.” (underlining supplied for emphasis)

The CBI thereafter, indicated the number of candidates appointed

and the summary of allegations in the writ petitions as under:

“4.14 Enquiry has further transpired that on the basis of interview, as conducted by the aforesaid boards at the above noted 5 Centres/stations, O/O the Director, School Education & Literacy (earlier known as DEME) selected following candidates and issued appointment letters :-

1. Jowai : 111 candidates.

2. Shillong : 75 candidates.

3. Amlarem : 53 candidates, (initially 43 candidates & then 10 candidates from waiting list). 4. Tura : 60 candidates.

5. Dadonggiri : 76 candidates.

The selection of aforesaid candidates were questioned before the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench vide WP(C) No. 106 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 88 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 52 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 408 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 51 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 15 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 267 (SH) of 2010, WP(C) No. 50 (SH) of 2010 and WP(C) No. 182 (SH) of 2010 on the following ground :- i) Awarding of more marks than the maximum 7 marks, awardable on account of experience. ii) Candidates who got selected, got more marks on account of experience as compared to the candidates, who were not selected and having more experience. iii) Marks of the candidate, who got selected were manipulated in the score sheet, so that their marks of grand total be higher. iv) Candidates, who did not qualify SET and having only minimum qualification, were selected as L.P. School teacher and the candidates, who were having higher educational qualification and also qualified the SET, were not selected. v) Candidates, who were debarred from appearing in interview on account of over-age, were allowed to appear in the interview and got selected.”

Thereafter, the CBI indicated in minute details all the overwritings

and tampering of marks in relation to a huge number of candidates at the

Centres being inquired into. All such details running in about 80 minutely

printed pages need not be reproduced but the summation of findings of the

inquiry by CBI, as occurring in paragraphs 4.34, 4.35 and 4.37; and the



conclusion as occurring in paragraph 5 of its report, need to be noticed as

under3:

“4.34 Enquiry has established that the majority of candidates in the questioned 5 stations Jowai, Shillong, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggiri were appointed in irregular manner by changing their original marks on account of experience, educational qualification etc. in the score sheet after applying white fluid on the original marks awarded by the board and the grand total of the score sheet was also changed in the similar manner. Thus it was felt necessary to examine the Members of all the 5 Boards. Accordingly, the Members of the aforesaid 5 Boards were examined and in that process the following fact has transpired in respect of the above noted 5 Boards:- I. Jowai:

The Members of the board of Jowai Sadar during examination have stated that they awarded the marks in the score sheet based on the performance as well as documents relating to the educational qualification & experience etc., as produced by the concerned candidates. In the Score sheet, so prepared by the Members of the Jowai Board, there was no cutting or application of white fluids. The score sheet, so prepared by the board, was handed over to the Director, DEME by the Member Secretary for further necessary action.

II. Shillong:

The Members of the board of Shillong Sadar during examination have stated that they awarded the marks in the score sheet based on the performance as well as documents relating to the educational qualification & experience etc., as produced by the concerned candidates. In the Score sheet, so prepared by the Members of the Shillong Board, there was no cutting or application of white fluids. The score sheet, so prepared by the board, was handed over to the Director, DEME by the Member Secretary for further necessary action. It may be further mentioned here that the Board of Shillong also prepared a merit list of the candidate based on the score sheet prepared by them. They also handed over a copy of the merit list to the Director, DEME duly retaining a copy of the same. Member Secretary of Shillong Board after perusal of merit list of Shillong Sadar and after comparing the same with the copy of the merit list, as prepared by them observed that the 19 candidates of the merit list, as prepared by them was also retained in the final list of selected candidate, for appointment as teacher in L.P.School by Director, DEME.

III. Amlarem:

The Members of the Board of Amlarem Sub-Division during examination have stated that they awarded the marks in the score sheet based on the performance as well as documents relating to the educational qualification & experience etc. as produced by the concerned candidates. In the Score sheet, so prepared by the Members of the Amlarem Board, there was no cutting or application of white fluids. The score sheet, so prepared by the board, was handed over to the Director, DEME by the Member Secretary for further necessary action.

3 In paragraph 4.36, CBI tabulated the names of public representatives who made

recommendations, the number of candidates recommended by each of them and the Centre from where the recommended candidates appeared. This very table has re-occurred verbatim in paragraph 6.8 of the report of HLSC as „Statement – 1‟ and hence, to avoid repetition, the same is not being reproduced here. However, the findings with regard to such facts is stated in paragraph 4.37 of CBI report which is being reproduced



IV. Tura:

The Members of the board of Tura Sadar during examination have stated that they awarded the marks in the score sheet based on the performance as well as documents relating to the educational qualification & experience etc., as produced by the concerned candidates. In the Score Sheet, so prepared by the Members of the Tura Board, there was no cutting or application of white fluids. The score sheet, so prepared by the board, was handed over to the Director DEME by the Member Secretary for further necessary action.

V. Dadenggiri:

The Members of the board of Dadenggiri Sub-Division during examination have stated that they awarded the marks in the score sheet based on the performance as well as documents relating to the educational qualification & experience etc. as produced by the concerned candidates. In the Score Sheet, so prepared by the Members of the Dadenggiri Board, there was no cutting or application of white fluids. The score sheet, so prepared by the board, was handed over to the Director, DEME by the Member Secretary for further necessary action.

4.35 In the above noted circumstances, it was felt necessary to examine Shri J.D. Sangma, the then Director, DEME (now known as School Education & Literacy). As such, said Shri Sangma was examined. In course of his examination, said Shri Sangma has stated that under the instruction of the then Minister of Education namely Smt. Umpareen Lyngdoh, he had to change the score sheet as prepared by all the above noted 5 Boards duly applying white fluid on the original marks as awarded by the Members of the said Board. Said Shri Sangma also handed over a file containing list, received by said Minister from different persons/MLAs/Ministers recommending the names of the candidate for selection as Teacher in L.P. Schools of Meghalaya. Said Shri Sangma has further disclosed that based on the aforesaid letters/slips of paper containing recommendation in respect of candidates for appointment as L.P. Teachers, he with the help of two more persons (identity not known to him), who were supporters of Education Minister, applied white fluid on the Score sheet and inflated the numbers of the candidates ordered to be appointed by the Education Minister. The said work of tampering of score sheet was partially made at the residence of Minister and at his official residence.

*** *** ***

4.37 Enquiry has also established that 81 numbers of candidates of Jowai recommended for appointment by Shri R.C. Laloo, Minister of Agriculture, Forest & Environment, Shri S.Niawbhalang Dhar, Parliament Secretary, Shri F. War, Advisor of Chief Minister and Shri M Pariat, MDC, Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya, 108 numbers of candidates of Shillong recommended for appointment by Shri Ronnie V. Lyngdoh, MLA, Shri Remington Pyngrope, Parliament Secretary, Shri Charles Pyngrope, Speaker, Shri Sanbor Shullai, MLA, Dy.Speaker, Shri Prestone Tynsong, MLA, Shri A.L. Hek, MLA, Shri Don Kupar Massan, Minister of Excise, Shri J.A. Lyngdoh, Minister of Food & Civil Supply and Shri L. Malngiang, MDC, Dy.Chief Executive, Khasi Hills Autonomous Council, Meghalaya, 29 numbers of candidates of Amlarem recommended for appointment by Shri P.L. Tariang, Ex-MLA, Co-Chairman, State Dev. Reforms Commission, 3 numbers of candidates of Tura recommended for appointment by Shri Limison D. Sangma, Minister of State and 34 numbers of candidates of Dadenggiri recommended for appointment by Shri Limison D. Sangma, Minister of State were mostly accommodated and appointed as Asstt. Teacher of L.P. School of the above noted places.



5. Conclusion:

i) The Selection Committees were not properly constituted in the 5 Sub-Divisions that enquiry was conducted. In 1 Sub-Division namely Shillong, the Chairman of the Selection Committee did not sit in the Selection Committee but signed the score sheets on all the days.

ii) There was large scale tampering of score sheets in all the 5 Sub-Divisions and the number of candidates who got selected after their score sheets were tampered have been discussed in detail. Even in the case of those candidates who got selected without any tampering it is doubtful that they are genuine. This is due to the fact that the marks of many candidates were lowered to disqualify them.

iii) The allegations in the Writ Petitions are found to be true with regards to tampering of marks, appointment of over age candidates, awarding of marks which is more than the prescribed limit for experience, educational qualification.

iv) The enquiry also revealed that many of the selected candidates were recommended by politicians such as Ministers, MLAs, MDCs.

v) Prima-facie it appears that the tampering was done in the office of the Director, Elementary and Mass Education Department to favour some candidates who did not qualify and also candidates recommended by politicians.

vi) The enquiry was conducted in 5 Sub-Divisions as referred by the Hon‟ble High Court. There are 10 other Sub-Divisions for which no enquiry was conducted.”


It is, thus, seen that while the writ petitioners had essentially been

crying foul with the allegations of arbitrariness, wrong awarding of marks

and induction of over-age candidates and such allegations were found

enormously true but that was not all; and surpassing all other aspects, the

CBI reported on a startling revelation that a large number of public

representatives, holding important positions as Speaker, Deputy Speaker,

Minister, Member of Legislative Assembly or Member of District Council

etc. had made recommendations for appointment of their chosen

candidates as L.P. School teacher; and such recommendations were

indeed acted upon; and in order to fulfill such desires, the score sheets

were tampered with application of white fluid and inflating the marks of a

number of candidates. The then Director, who was examined by the CBI

alleged having carried out such alterations at the instructions of the

Minister of Education. The said Director also allegedly handed over the file



containing the letters/communications of such recommendations. The CBI,

duly and faithfully, recorded the facts so divulged and, significantly, it was

found as a matter of fact that a large number of recommended candidates

at the referred Centres were indeed accommodated and appointed as

Assistant Teachers of L.P. Schools.

Unfortunately, this report remained in a sealed cover and the

Division Bench did not consider it proper to peruse the same while

delivering the judgment dated 16.08.2012. We are constrained to make

these comments for we feel that, had the said report been examined with

reference to the cogent findings of the learned Single Judge, the Hon‟ble

Division Bench of Gauhati High Court might have adopted a course

different than that of entrusting another inquiry to the State Government.

Be that as it may, this aspect needs no further comment because the said

judgment dated 16.08.2012 has already been set aside by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court with only saving of the HLSC report for the purpose of re-

examination.

THE REPORT OF HIGH LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

As noticed, in the judgment dated 16.08.2012, the Division Bench

assumed that the matter was only of some allegations by some of the

unsuccessful candidates and was not of such magnitude that would justify

an inquiry by the CBI. The Hon‟ble Division Bench also chose to rely on

the assertions made on behalf of the State Government that it would be

willing to get the proper inquiry conducted and to take all the necessary

measures and, therefore, modified the order of the learned Single Judge.

However, even while handing over the inquiry to a Committee to be

constituted by the Government, the Division Bench did not annul the CBI

report and expected the Government to take the assistance and guidance

from the same. In the concluding lines of the judgment dated 16.08.2012,



the Division Bench also indicated the obvious on the future course as per

the inquiry report that it would be the duty of the State Government „not to

spare any officer or authority, howsoever high he may be, if any deliberate

complicity is found in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the

selection process‟. However, as shall be noticed hereafter, the members of

the so-called High Level Scrutiny Committee, while purportedly carrying

out the assigned tasks, though did not deny the hard facts staring on the

face of the record but then, instead of taking the matter to its logical

conclusion with forthright recommendations, chose a softer course, only of

recommending the rejection or removal of some of the tainted candidates.

However, on the core of uncomfortable features, relating to questionable

interference in the selection process by the public representatives, only

framed the phraseology on morality and thereafter, left the matter to be

taken care of „in future‟ while, perhaps, assuming as if such pretentious

propositions would be enough to give a decent burial to the ghost of this

scam. We are afraid, if the polluters of public morality are not brought to

the book, it shall be a travesty of justice and shall shake the faith of entire

society in the system which is governed by the rule of law. We shall come

to the other aspects of the matter later but, appropriate it would be to have

a close look at the essential features of the HLSC report first.

The so-called High Level Scrutiny Committee, in its long drawn

report running in 90 minutely printed pages, indicated its constitution and

the terms of reference as follows:

“1.1 Constitution: The High Level Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the

Education Department, Government of Meghalaya vide Order No.EDN/CC/13/2012/86 dated 12.10.2012 and as per order of the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench in its Judgment No.WA NO.(SH) 52 of 2011 dated 31/08/2012.

1.2 The Members are: (i) Shri E.P.Kharbhih, IAS, Commissioner & Secretary to the

Government of Meghalaya, Education Department & Executive Chairman, MBOSE, Meghalaya as Chairman.



(ii) Shri C.C.M.Mihsil, IAS, Joint Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department and Director of Educational Research & Training, Meghalaya, Shillong as Member and

(iii) Shri P. Ryngksai, Deputy Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong as Member

1.3. The Terms of References are: I. To(a) scrutinize and review the records regarding the candidature

of the selected and unselected candidates involved within the ambit and scope of connected Writ Petitions being WP.(C) Nos.106 (SH)/2010, 51(SH)/2010, 52 (SH)/2010, 88(SH)/2010, 408(SH)/2010, 267 (SH)/2010, 50(SH)/2010, 15(SH)/2010, 182(SH)/2010 so as to ascertain the legality/basis of such selection or non-selection, as the case may be, and thereafter by segregating the tainted candidates from the non-tainted, take appropriate actions in accordance with law, to offer appointment/ confirm appointment of the duly selected candidates whether already appointed or not and also terminate the candidature/appointment of the ineligible candidates and appoint eligible candidates including the petitioners, if found suitable.

(b) While undertaking the exercise, the committee shall also take beneficial assistance and guidance of the findings, if any, recorded legitimately by the CBI in its enquiry report now lying in the custody of the State Authorities.

(C) The Committee will also ascertain if any Officer or authority has indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process.

II. The entire exercise ordered above shall be completed not later than 28th February, 2013.

III. This Notification is in compliance with the order dated 31st August, 2012 passed on Writ Appeal No. (SH) 52/2011 by the Shillong Bench of the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court.”

Thereafter, the Committee referred to the background of the matter

and proposed action plan to carry out the terms of reference. The

Committee elaborated in paragraphs 2.3 to 2.11 the facts relating to the

late receipt of documents from CBI and non-availability of some other

documents and the extension of time sought from the High Court for

submission of the report where, lastly, the order dated 28.05.2013 was

received by them on 29.05.2013, extending the time for submission of

report by two months. The Committee, thereafter, indicated in paragraph

2.12 that it had, „within the limited time available at its disposal‟ undertaken

„a thorough and painstaking scrutiny and verification of the available and

relevant documents‟. The Committee, thereafter, referred to the



notifications dated 18.02.2005 and 24.11.2008 as also the advertisements

dated 15.06.2006 and 10.12.2008 and the bifurcation of marks for eligibility

test and interview, the relevant aspects whereof have already been noticed

hereinbefore. On the constitution of Selection Committees in the process in

question, the HLSC stated as follows:

“2.36 The above walk in Interview was conducted in all Sub-Divisions in the State in different dates during the months of May to July 2009 and the Members were notified and constituted as per guidelines of the said Notification dt.24/11/2008 which are as follows:

(i) SDO/EAC of the subdivision concerned Chairman (ii) Deputy DEME Member Secretary

(iii) Headmaster/Assistant Headmaster of any Government UPS to be nominated by DEME Member (iv) Head teacher of the Government LPS where the vacancy occurs Member (v) Lecturer of a DIET located in the District concerned to be nominated by the Director

ERT Member”

Thereafter, the HLSC indicated the number of candidates who had

appeared and who were declared passed and who were shortlisted and

ultimately declared in the first list including wait list as follows:

“2.37 In response to the above advertisement and as reported by the Director School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong, 4928 candidates appeared the Walk-in-Interview in the respective Sub-Divisions. Out of the above candidates, 2929 were having SET Certificates and 4054 were declared passed. The number of candidates shortlisted were 1447 and 1163 were declared in the 1st List including wait listed

candidates against 857 vacancies till 2010.”

Thereafter, the Committee referred to the background of the litigation

that was taken up in the nine writ petitions and also referred to the order of

the learned Single Judge and his prima facie findings in the following:

“2.41 The Committee in one of its sittings have to resort to taking help and assistance in dealing with the very nature of the nine (9) Writ Petitions by referring to the North East Judgment 2010. It is confirmed from the ruling of the Justice T. Vaiphei whereby in his common judgment dated 21/10/2011 on the above nine Writ Petitions after weighing and considering the allegation in the Writ Petitions ordered the CBI, Shillong to cause impartial and independent enquiry on the matter and to submit report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the above judgment „as prima facie, the selection process was found to be suffering from vices of arbitrariness, perversity and irregularity, besides being vitiated by nepotism, favouritism and malice.‟



After such opening and introductory remarks and while pointing out

that it has scrutinized the five Centres, where writ petitions had been filed

in relation to Jowai, Shillong, Amlarem and Tura and there was no writ

petition in relation to Dadenggre, the Committee indicated the principal set

of allegations and the scrutiny process taken up by it, as under:

“3.2 The Committee in its meetings decided to review and scrutinize the available documents centre-wise so as to get a clear picture of the complicities of each Case/Centre and thereby enabled the Committee to give clear cut decisions, comments and recommendations.

After careful examinations of the Terms of References vis-à-vis the nine (9) Writ Petitions, the CBI Report and other relevant documents observed that prima facie the main allegations in the whole selection process are that the score sheets and the selected list of candidates submitted by the Selection Committees were manipulated and tampered at the Directorate level by allotting surreptitiously more marks in experience, educational qualification etc. thereby leading to gross impairment and obstruction of justice in the appointment of ineligible candidates at the cost and anguish of eligible candidates. In view of the above, the Committee reviewed and scrutinized each Centre i.e. Tura, Dadenggre, Shillong, Jowai and Amlarem which is detailed below:”

Thereafter, the Committee proceeded to deal with Tura Centre from

paragraph 3.3 onwards. The Committee referred to the allegations in the

writ petitions and then gave out the details of its scrutiny of 60 selected

candidates out of 554 who had appeared in interview and then, made its

initial comments in paragraph 3.6 of the report as follows:

“3.6 Comments: (i) On the above statement and as per norms, Tithar R Marak was not

entitled to be allotted with 5 marks under the Academic column as he passed PUC (SP) as there is no provision for Simple Pass and 8 marks for Experience as he has got only 2 years experience. In any case his total marks should have been 2+19 = 21 only.

(i) On the other hand, Robert Ch Momin should have been added

three more marks in experience as he has got seven years experience which when added his total marks = 33.

(ii) On the above facts, Tithar R Marak was not eligible even to apply

as he passed only PUC (SP), has got no SET and his teaching experience was only about 2 years. It may be concluded that his marks has been illegally allotted and tampered to forcefully make him eligible and appear in the selected list.

Whereas the Petitioner Robert Ch Momin as per his credentials he should have been selected.”

The Committee also reproduced the statement made before it by the



Member Secretary Tura Centre. The relevant part of this statement, as

reproduced by the Committee in sub-paragraphs (iv) and (vi) of paragraph

3.7, deserve to be taken note of as under:

3.7 Statement of the Member Secretary, Tura Centre: *** *** *** (iv) That the remarks appeared in the remark column of the score

sheet „2 years and no SET‟ was written by me and now after being shown the score sheet, I noticed that it was written as „12 years‟ teaching experience. I had noticed this also at the time when the Investigation Officer of CBI showed me during the enquiry.

*** *** *** (vi) That there was no overwriting in the score sheet and merit list submitted by me to the Director of Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy) Meghalaya, Shillong.”

The Committee, thereafter, made its comments and

recommendations as regards Tura Centre as follows:-

“3.8 Comments on the Statement of Member Secretary:

The Committee on scrutiny of the Writ Petition, the statement of the Member Secretary and the list of selected candidates and comparing with the findings in the CBI‟s Report placed the following comments: (i) The candidates in the above Statement bearing Sl. Nos. 10,

15, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58 & 59 (Pvt. Respondent) on verification from the original score sheets, the Committee found that their marks were tampered and considered as tainted candidates whose appointment are to be cancelled.

(ii) Out of the sixty selected candidates of Tura Centre, the

Committee found that the marks in the score sheets of the candidates bearing Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56 & 60 in the above Statement were not tampered and considered non tainted candidates whose appointments need to be retained.

3.9 The Committee‟s Recommendation:

The appointment of the candidates at para 3.8 (i) above including Sl. No. 59, Shri Tithar R Marak (Private respondent) should be terminated and candidates at para 38 (ii) above including Shri Robert Ch Momin (Petitioner) be retained and appointed respectively.”

From paragraph 3.10 onwards, the Committee indicated its scrutiny

of 76 selected candidates out of 382 who appeared for interview at

Dadenggre Centre and also commented that though there were no

complaints or writ petitions but, there were some noticeable irregularities in

the score sheet. In regard to this Centre also, the Committee recorded the



statement of Member Secretary and reproduced the same. Again, the

relevant part thereof may be noticed as follows:

“3.12 Statement of the Member Secretary, Dadenggre Centre:

*** *** *** (iv) That the marks in some columns in the score sheets appears to

have been tampered and were not in the same handwriting as mine which I had submitted to the Directorate. The same question was also asked by the Investigating Officer of the CBI during the course of the CBI‟s enquiry on this matter and I confirmed.

(v) That during the preparation of the Final score sheets and merit list,

in a few cases only where there are any mistakes noticed, I had used a white correcting pen only and not white correcting fluid and those were initialed by me.”

The Committee, thereafter, found that out of 76 candidates selected,

the marks of 54 candidates were found tampered and made the comments

and recommendations as follows:

“3.14 Comments:

The Committee on scrutiny the statement of the Member Secretary and the list of selected candidates and comparing with the findings in the CBI‟s Report placed the following comments: (i) Out of the 76 selected candidates of Dadenggre Centre, the

Committee found that the marks in the score sheets of the candidates bearing Sl. Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73 & 76 in the above Statement were found tampered and all are considered as tainted candidates whose appointment is to be cancelled.

(ii) The candidates in the above Statement bearing Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6,

8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 45, 48, 60, 66, 69, 74 & 75 on verification from the original score sheets, the Committee found that their marks were not tampered and considered as non tainted candidates and their appointment need to be retained.

3.15 The Committee‟s Recommendation:

The Committee recommends that the appointments of the above candidates at para 3.14 (i) should be terminated and candidates at para

3.14 (ii) above be retained.”

The Committee took up Shillong Sadar Centre from paragraph 3.16

onwards. The Committee recorded the statement of Member Secretary of

the Selection Committee and also the person who had signed as

Chairperson and reproduced the same in paragraph 3.18; and indicated its



opinion that the entire interview process for Shillong Centre should be

considered as invalid because the appointed Chairperson did not attend

the interview and in fact, the Member Secretary himself allotted the marks

in both the provisions meant for Chairman and Member Secretary. But the

Committee, despite stating its strong reservations, left this aspect of the

matter only with the comment that inspite of glaring anomalies and

irregularities, the Directorate had accepted the interview process!

Paragraphs 3.18 and 3.19 of the Committee‟s report read as under:

“3.18 In order to ascertain the allegations made in the above Writ Petition, the Committee decided to call the Chairperson and the Member Secretary for hearing and the following are their Statements: (i) Statement of the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee,

Shillong Centre reproduced below: As stated by Shri A. Sun, Member Secretary of the said

Committee, one member of the Selection Committee i.e. the Chairman was not present during all the days of the Interview. He further informed the Committee that before the Interview was held, he has brought the matter to the notice the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District who informed that at that point of time, the service of the EAC could not be spared. He instructed Shri A.Sun to go ahead with the Interview. As such, Shri A. Sun functioned as Chairman and as well as the Member Secretary during the entire process of the Interview. Consequently, he has to allot marks in the Score Sheet in both the provision meant for the Chairman and the Member Secretary.

Later, after the Interview was over, he approached Smt. C.D.

Lyngwa, MCS who was initially nominated by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District to act as the Chairman/Chairperson of the above Committee but he was informed by the above Officer that she was no longer the Chairman and directed Shri A.Sun to meet Smt. C. Kharkongor, MCS, for her signature in all the pages of the score sheets. Although Smt. C. Kharkongor, MCS, was not aware that she was supposed to be the Chairman/Chairperson and that no Order was passed in this regard and after being insisted by Shri A. Sun, Member Secretary, who said that he was directed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills to approach her to which she reluctantly signed the score sheets.

As stated by Shri A. Sun, Member Secretary of Shillong

Centre, he had submitted the score sheets along with the merit list to the Director, Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy), Meghalaya, Shillong, after the Interview which was clean and no overwriting or applying of white correcting fluid.

(ii) Statement of the Chairperson of the Selection Committee, Shillong

Centre reproduced below: During the hearing on 03/07/2013, Smt. C. Kharkongor,

MCS, who signed as the Chairperson of the Selection Committee submitted the following statement:



(a) That she was not aware that the Interview for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government LP Schools was held for Shillong Sadar during the month of May to June, 2009.

(b) That she came to know only when the Interview was over when

the Member Secretary, Shri A. Sun, approached me for obtaining my signature in the score sheet.

(c) That she was not aware that she was supposed to be the

Chairperson of the above Interview and till date she has not seen the file nominating her as the Chairperson. Had she known that she was nominated as the Chairperson, she would have attended the Interview even if she was busy officially in her capacity as Electoral Registration Officer for the then Lok Sabha election, as she deemed it absolutely necessary to chair the Interview of the Selection Committee.

(d) That the Member Secretary insisted that she should sign the

score sheet meant for the Chairman since all the Members have already signed and marks was already allotted by the Member Secretary in the column meant for the Chairperson and if the Department had to re-conduct the whole recruitment procedure, it would involve a long period of time and delay the appointment of teachers in the Schools.

(e) That in good faith, she have signed the score sheet for the

Shillong Centre as Shri A. Sun stated to her that she was directed by the then Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District to approach her and get her signature.

(f) That when she signed the score sheets and the merit list, she

has not seen any overwriting and traces of white correcting fluid being applied in the marks scored by the candidates in all the columns.

3.19 Comments:

On scrutiny of the above stated facts, in the first instance, the Committee strongly objects to the Interview for Shillong Centre which should have been considered by the Director, (EME), as invalid since the Chairperson, Smti. C. Kharkongor, MCS, did not attend all the days of the Interview. Secondly, the Member Secretary, Shri A. Sun, allotted marks in the provision meant for the absentee Chairperson which may be considered as inacceptable and illegal.

However, since the Interview of Shillong Centre in spite of glaring anomalies and irregularities during the Interview was accepted by the Directorate/Education Department even after the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the DEME on 04/12/2009.


The Committee, thereafter, found that out of the 79 selected

candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, 60 were deleted

from the original list and they were replaced by another 60 unqualified and

ineligible candidates with tampering of their marks and indicated all such

tampering in paragraph 3.23 of the report. The Committee found that all

the candidates as indicated in paragraph 3.23, who had replaced the



original candidates with over-writings and manipulations, would be treated

as tainted candidates and then, further indicated that some of the

candidates in the original list were to be considered for appointment as

untainted candidates in the following:

“3.24 Comments on Statement 1 and 2: (i) The candidates as indicated in the above Statement 2 bearing Sl.

No. 1 to 60 who replaced the candidates in the Statement 1 above are considered as tainted candidates as their marks where tampered to make them eligible.

(ii) The candidates bearing Sl. No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 20, 21 (Petitioner), 23 (Petitioner), 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32 (Petitioner), 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 (Petitioner), 47 (Petitioner), 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78 & 79 deleted from the Original List at Statement 1 above are considered as non tainted candidates and are eligible for appointment.

3.25 Committee‟s Recommendation: (i) On the above stated facts seen in Statement 1 & 2, the Committee

recommends that the 60 candidates at para 3.24 (i) above who are considered as tainted candidates be terminated.

(ii) With regard to the 60 candidates including the eligible Petitioners

who were deleted from the original list at Para 3.24 (ii) above who are considered as non tainted candidates be appointed.

3.26 Note on the Select List and Appointment Order:

The Committee also noted that 81 vacancies is available for Shillong Centre and 81 candidates appeared in the selected list but only 75 candidates appointment was issued. On further scrutiny, two candidates (Sl. No. 45 & Sl. No. 71) were deleted as it appears that their names were listed twice. Out of (81-2) = 79 candidates, 5 candidates Sl.No. 4, 23, 26, 51 & 57 in the Select List, appointment was not issued to them and the reason is not known. However, it is found that one candidate in the Waiting List Sl.No. 1 namely, Rilang Pale, appointment was issued to him.

It is surprising to note that the identity of one mysterious candidate Viz Shri Dasgusga M Thongni (Sl: No. 57) who appeared in the Select List could not be found in the List of candidates (Attendance), Score Sheet, list of appointed candidates as well as in other documents of Shillong Centre.”

The Committee further scrutinized the particulars of ten writ

petitioners of Shillong Centre and found six of them eligible and

recommended accordingly.

As regards Amlarem Centre, the Committee dealt with the matter in

paragraph 3.30 onwards and in the select list of 43 candidates found only

5 to be untainted and the marks in relation to all other having been



tampered and recommended as follows:

“3.34 The Committee‟s Recommendation: (i) The documents and particulars available with the Committee of the

above candidates was verified and scrutinized and it is found that candidates bearing Sl.Nos. 1, 4, 26, 28 & 31 as per Statement 1 above are eligible and non tainted candidates as their marks were not tampered.

The Committee recommends that the above candidates be retained as Assistant Teachers in Government LP Schools under Amlarem Sub-division.

(ii) 38 candidates bearing Sl.Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 & 43 as per Statement 1 above after a thorough scrutiny of the credentials and confirming from the original score sheets, the Committee found that the marks of the above candidates were tampered and are therefore not eligible and considered as tainted candidates.

The Committee recommends that the above candidates serving in

Government L.P. Schools under Amlarem Sub-division may be terminated.”

The Committee, thereafter, dealt with the matter of writ petitioners

relating to Amlarem Centre and found discrepancies and tampering in their

marks too but found another discrepancy regarding one candidate who

was erroneously assigned lower marks that were awarded to another

candidate; and recommended her appointment. The Committee thereafter

referred to the statement of the Member Secretary Amlarem Centre; and

again, the relevant part thereof may be reproduced as under:

“3.37 Statement of the Member Secretary, Amlarem Centre made on 03/07/2013: *** *** *** (vii) That during the course of the CBI‟s Enquiry, I had confirmed to the

Investigating Officer of the CBI that the marks scored by some candidates in the experience column and other columns appears to be tampered by applying white ink which I could see with my naked eye.

(viii) That in the Final score sheet and statement of merit list submitted

by me, I had used a white correcting pen only and not white correcting fluid and those were initialed by me, which were very few in numbers.”

Thereafter, the Committee took up the matters relating to Jowai

Centre and, as regards Writ Petition Nos. 51, 88, 50, 267 and 52 of 2010,

found that only the petitioners of Writ Petition Nos. 51 and 52 of 2010 were



eligible. As regards 45 petitioners of Writ Petition No.106 of 2010, the

Committee found 15 of them to be eligible. Further, as regards 111

selected candidates, the Committee found as many as 92 to be the tainted

candidates and recommended as follows:

“3.44 The Committee‟s Recommendations: (i) As per Statement 1 above of Jowai Centre and out of 111 selected

candidates it is found that 18 candidates bearing Sl.No. 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 32, 65, 76, 86, 87, 108, 110 are non tainted candidates and considered eligible as their marks in the score sheet were not tampered.

The Committee recommends that the candidates at para

3.44 (i) above be retained as Assistant Teacher in Government L.P School under Jowai Sadar Civil Division.

(ii) 92 candidates in the above Statement-1 bearing Sl. No. 2, 3, 5, 6,

7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111 are considered as tainted candidates and hence not-eligible as their marks were tampered mostly in Experience, Viva Voce and Grand total columns.

The Committee recommends that the candidates at para

3.44 (ii) above should be terminated. (iii) One candidate at Sl. No. 82, Smti. Kermiki Pariat has already

resigned and joined in the Public Works Department, Meghalaya.”

In regard to Jowai Centre also, the Committee took the statement of

Member Secretary and his relevant assertions may also be taken note of

as under:

“3.47 Statement of Member Secretary, Jowai Centre *** *** *** (vii) That during the course of CBI‟s Enquiry, I had confirmed to the Investigating Officer of the CBI that the marks scored by some candidates in the experience column and other columns appears to be tampered by applying white ink which I could see with my naked eye. (viii) That in the Final score sheet and statement of merit list submitted by me, I had used a white correcting pen only and not white correcting fluid and those were initialed by me, which were very few in numbers.”

After the aforesaid survey of the five Centres, the HLSC summarized

its findings in Part-4 of its report. For its relevance, this Part-4 of the report

is reproduced, in extenso, as under:



“Part-4:SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE On the above mentioned facts narrated in each Centre of Tura,

Dadenggre, Shillong, Jowai and Amlarem, the Committee submits herewith its findings:

4.1 As per para 31 of the Notification dated 28/11/2008 mentioned in this

report at para 2.33, it is mandatory that after the Personal Interview is conducted, the list of recommended candidates in order of merit shall be prepared by the Selection Committee and the same shall be sent to the Director, E&ME who would then submit to the Education Department for approval.

All the Member Secretaries of the above five Centres during the hearing conducted by the HLSC have stated that after the Interview was over, they have prepared the merit list based on the marks scored by the candidates and later submitted to the Director, E&ME, Meghalaya, Shillong. In this regard, the Director, E&ME, had convened a meeting on 17th April, 2009 with all of them to make aware of the procedure to be followed.

4.2 The Committee during its scrutiny and review found only one original merit

list of Shillong Centre under the signature of the Member Secretary, Shri A.Sun. The Committee took serious note of the fact that the original merit lists of four Centres, i.e. Tura, Dadenggre, Jowai and Amlarem could not be found and that the merit lists of the above four Centres made available to the Committee does not bear the signature of the Member Secretaries concerned. The unavailability of the merit lists of the above four Centres clearly indicates that the original lists may have been replaced after manipulation and the marks tampered later at the Directorate level to favour some candidates who did not qualify and also candidates recommended by the public representatives.

4.3 Since the above original merit lists of the above four Centres were not

made available to the Committee, the matter was referred to the Director, School Education & Literacy, Shri J.D. Sangma, MCS, and in his reply vide letter No. DSEL-7/APPT/LP/2009/18 dated 12/07/2012 (2013), stated that there is no such documents as original merit list of Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre and also other Sub-divisions (except Shillong) as the Committee was not asked to submit any such merit list. The above statement proves that the merit lists prepared by the Member Secretaries were discarded and later a new one was prepared to suit with the tampered marks scored by the candidates. It also points out that the above cited para 31 of the Notification was deliberately violated in as far as the merit list is concerned so as to enable the above Director to prepare the merit lists arbitrarily. In this regard, the Director, EM&E, „has indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process‟. When in his own statement also which was recorded by the Committee on 2nd July, 2013, he had divulged the truth that „the serial numbers were jumbled up and interchanged to give preferential in order of merit to the candidates recommended by the different MLAs and Ministers‟ and that this was done „on the advice of the then Hon‟ble Minister of Education on herself.‟

Further, from his Statement, recorded and read as corrected, he again admitted that „it is a fact that there was a little displacement of the serial order of the merit list due to addition of few candidates into the list who were given preferential‟ as „there were names that did not appear in the select list‟ and that those names were recommended on „request by the respective Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries of the area concerned.‟



4.4 Further, in his statement, the Director, EM&E purportedly stated that „the reviewing of the list of qualified candidates was done in the Minister‟s residence.‟ This act of omission on the part of the public servant, if true, is unethical and unbecoming for a man of his stature and position. The Committee has no means to ascertain the matter.

The Committee during scrutiny of the Original score sheets found that most of the tampering works was done in Experience, Viva Voce and Grand Total which indicates that the alteration of marks in the above Columns was intentional and malicious to make ineligible candidates improve their score to make them eligible and got selected.

4.5 The Committee noted that in the Statement, recorded and read as

corrected, deposed before it that at Sl. 1 of the Statement itself that in her capacity as the then Education Minister, she „was not aware that any Officer has indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process.‟ This open declaration on the part of the then Minister of Education contradicts the statement made by the Director, EM&E and the relevant records on the case. The Committee has no means to ascertain the claims and counter claims.

The Member Secretary of Jowai and Amlarem Centres stated that when any inadvertent error was detected in the final score sheet, correction was made then and there and such error was always initialed. In this regard, the Committee found only few initialed signatures of the Member Secretary in the score sheets of the above two Centres whereas it is seen that there were massive corrections without initial which proves that massive tampering was done to those favoured candidates.

4.6 The Committee found that there were over-making in the score sheets of

most of the selected candidates particularly in experience and viva voce to forcefully make ineligible candidates eligible and got selected. This is also seen in the allegations made by the petitioners in Writ Petitions under scrutiny which is proved to be true.

4.7 Number of tainted and non-tainted candidates: The Committee after completion of the review and scrutiny works of

five (5) selection Centres of Tura, Dadenggre, Shillong, Jowai and Amlarem, placed below the consolidated list of the numbers of candidates tainted and non-tainted.

Table indicating the segregation of the tainted/non-tainted candidates:

Sl. No.

Centre

Total No. of candidates

in the 1st list

Total No. of candidates appointed

No. of tainted

candidates

No. of Non-tainted

candidates Remarks

1. Tura 60 60 23 37 As per para 3.8 of this Report

2. Dadenggre 76 76 54 22 As per para 3.15 of this Report

3. Shillong 81 75 60 19 As per para 3.25 of this Report

4. Amlarem 43 43 38 5 As per para 3.34 of this Report

5. Jowai 111 111 93 18 As per para 3.44 of this Report

Total 371 365 268 101



N.B. It is noted that out of 81 candidates appeared in the first select list of

Shillong Centre, only 75 candidates were appointed. The details of the five candidates may be referred to para 3.26 of this Report.

4.8 Number of Petitioners: The Case of the Petitioners also was scrutinized in each Centres and the

consolidated statement is placed below:

Sl. No.

Centres Total No. of

Petitioners

Eligible Candidates

Ineligible Candidates Remarks

1 Tura 1 1 Nil As per para 3.9 (III) of this Report

2 Dadenggre Nil Nil Nil Nil

3 Shillong 10 6 4 As per para 3.29 of this Report

4 Amlarem 18 1 17 As per para 3.37 of this Report

5 Jowai 47 17 30 As per para 3.41 (i)&(ii) of this Report

Total 76 25 51

4.9 With regard to the allotment of marks during Interview, the Committee

found that marks was given randomly especially in experience column without adhering to the guidelines in the Notification dated 24th November, 2008. It is also seen that over-marking and tampering was done mainly in the experience column and viva voce.

4.10 As per Notification dated 24th November, 2008 at para 2.35 of this Report

which states that the appointment order shall be issue by the Deputy Inspector of Schools (now Sub-Divisional School Education Officer) who is the appointing authority. However, in all instances in this recruitment process, the Committee has seen that the appointment order was issued by the Director, E&ME (now DSE&L). The Committee recommend to the Government that a strong view on the matter is to be taken so as to find out, if there is any break down, in the command chain in the established system of governance.”


In Part-6 of the report, the Committee referred to point I-(C) of the

Terms of Reference, where it was required to ascertain if any authority had

indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of vitiating or otherwise

interfering with the selection process. The Committee observed that within

the limited timeline, it had decided to examine only eight officers, of which,

the Statements of four Member-Secretaries of the respective Centres and

of the alleged Chairperson of Shillong Centre had already been



reproduced in the discussion relating to the respective Centres. The

Committee reproduced and dealt with the statements made by the

Principal Secretary, the Director, and the Minister of Education; and as

regards the statement of Minister, made the comments that nepotism and

favoritism in public offices if allowed to continue abated would result in

bleak future of human resource potentialities and recommended that the

State Government should „henceforth‟ nip in bud such arbitrariness and

nepotism. While commenting on the statement of the Director, the

Committee not only pointed out the contradictions vis-a-vis the statement

of the Minister but, also made categorical findings that large scale

tampering of the score sheets was carried out and it was true that several

interpolations were made so as to accommodate the candidates

recommended by the public representatives.

The Committee also referred to the facts relating to the

recommendations by the public representatives and found such acts to be

of interference with the selection process resulting in malpractices and

nepotism and at the same time, denying appointment to the deserving

candidates. The Committee also recommended that the candidates

recommended by the public representatives, whether appointed or not, be

disqualified. The Committee reproduced the same list of public

representatives and the number of candidates recommended by them as

occurring in the report of CBI. Part-6 of the Committee‟s report, also having

a bearing on the matter, is reproduced hereunder while omitting the matter

relating to the statement of Principal Secretary to the Government for the

same being not much relevant for present purpose4:

4 As noticed in F/N 3, CBI had, in paragraph 4.36 of its report, tabulated the names of public

representatives who made recommendations, the number of candidates recommended by each of them and the Centre where the recommended candidates had appeared. This very table has re-occurred verbatim in paragraph 6.8 of the report of HLSC as „Statement – 1‟, being the recommendations made to the Minister of Education. Significantly, in this paragraph 6.8 the HLSC has tabulated further particulars of few more public representatives, who made such recommendations to the Director Elementary and Mass Education, as „Statement-2‟



“PART-6: TERMS OF REFERENCE I(C)

The Terms of Reference at I(c) of the Notification dated 16th October,

2012 states that „the Committee will also ascertain if any Officer or

authority has indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of vitiating or

otherwise interfering with the selection process.‟

6.1 During its scrutiny works and ascertaining of the facts, the Committee

decided that within the limited deadline would call only eight officials

directly or indirectly involved in the process of recruitment which includes

the Principal Secretary, Education Department and the then Hon‟ble

Education Minister for hearing and submission of statement and

documents on the dates as noted below in the Statement:

List of officials called for hearing by the High Level Scrutiny Committee

Sl.No.

Name of Officials Designation Date

1

Dr. M. Ampareen Lyngdoh

Former Education Minister and now Minister of Urban Affairs, Government of Meghalaya

10th July, 2013

2

Shri P.S. Thangkhiew, IAS

Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Education Department

10th July, 2013

3

Shri J.D.Sangma

Director of Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy) Meghalaya, Shillong

2nd July, 2013

4

Smti.C.Kharkongor, MCS

Chairman of The Shillong Centre, Former ADM, East Khasi Hills District and now Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities, Government of Meghalaya

3rd July, 2013

5

Shri A.Sun

Member Secretary, Shillong Centre, Retd. Joint Director of Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy) Meghalaya, Shillong

24th June, 2013

6

Smti.A.I. Lyngdoh

Member Secretary, Jowai & Amlarem Centres, Retd. Deputy Director of Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy) Meghalaya, Shillong,

3rd July, 2013

7

Smti.V.Kynjing

Member Secretary, Dadenggre Centre, Retd. Deputy Director of Elementary & Mass Education (now Directorate of School Education & Literacy) Meghalaya, Shillong

4th July, 2013

8

Shri J.S.Khonglah

Member Secretary, Tura Centre, Former Monitoring Officer (DEME) and Retd. District School Education Officer, Jowai

4th July, 2013



N.B. The statement of the Member Secretaries of Tura, Dadenggre,

Shillong, Jowai and Amlarem and the Chairperson of Shillong

Centre has been highlighted in the respective Centres. The

statement of the rest as indicated in the above statement is given

below:

6.2 Statement of the then Minister of Education, Dr.M.Ampareen

Lyngdoh:

The then Education Minister, Dr.M.Ampareen Lyngdoh, now

Minister of Urban Affairs, Government of Meghalaya, was called for

hearing by the Committee on 10th July, 2013 and she submitted her

statement as reproduced below:

(i) That in my capacity as the then Education Minister, I was not aware

that any Officer has indulged in deliberate complicity in the matter of

vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection process and I did

not even know the different dates of the interviews held in the

District.

(ii) That when the file of the list of selected/qualified candidates for

appointment as Assistant Teachers in Government LP School was

put up to me, I have not issued any order/direction whatsoever but

except to sign and approved in the file containing the long result

sheets of a whole lot of names of candidates.

(iii) That no complaints came to my knowledge before or after the list of

successful candidates was published.

(iv) That I came to know and get familiar with the irregularities in the

process of recruitment of the Assistant Teachers in Government LP

Schools only when I read the media reports. No one has informed

or brought to my notice officially. No party or any candidate has

made any official complaint to me. I cannot take a media report as

something final. Later, when I was on tour to Thadlaskein and while

I was visiting the training programme of teachers to encourage

them, some candidates came to meet me and complain about the

confusion of certain candidates of having identical name which

appeared in the list of successful candidates but nothing came to

my notice or brought up in file officially.

(v) That I have not intervened in any way in the process of selection of

Assistant Teachers as I only got familiar with all those complications

only when I read in the media report.

6.3 Comments on the statement of the then Minister of Education:

The Committee on scrutiny of the statement of the Minister

deposed before it along with the statement of the DE&ME and relevant

available documents placed on records the following comments:

(i) The then Education Minister, Dr. M. Ampareen Lyngdoh at para 6.2

(i) above of her statement categorically denied having any

knowledge of any Officer who has indulged in deliberate complicity

in the matter of vitiating or otherwise interfering with the selection

process for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government

L.P. Schools before the declaration of the results and the litigation

that follows thereafter.



(ii) In para 6.2 (ii), she stated that when the file of the list of candidates

for appointment as Assistant Teachers was put up to her, she has

just signed and approved the file containing the long result sheet of

a whole lot of names and candidates and have not issued any order

or direction whatsoever.

(iii) In para 6.2 (iii) & (iv) above, she stated that no complaints came to

her knowledge before and after the list of successful candidates

was published and she got familiar with the irregularities in the

process of recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government L.P.

Schools only from the media reports but nothing came to her notice

or brought up in file officially.

(iv) The then Education Minister defended herself that she has not

intervened in any way in the process of selection of Assistant

Teaches in Government L.P. Schools.

However, the Committee on scrutiny of all the records made

available to it has noted with grave concern that in this instant case of

recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government L.P. Schools, there are

innumerable instances of irregularities in act of arbitrariness, nepotism and

favouritism on the part of the person(s) who hold public office in whatever

position and if it is allowed to continue unabated and unchecked would

only result in a bleak future for the State rich human resource

potentialities. As such, the Committee strongly recommends that the State

Government should henceforth nip in the bud such arbitrariness and

nepotism by taking a strong view on the matter.

The Committee recommends the following steps and measures:

(a) All public representatives including Government Officials must be

made aware that canvassing by way of recommendation letters is

not acceptable otherwise the public in general and the deserving

candidates in particular aspiring to fill up any vacancies in the

Government Departments will lose confidence in the State

Government and its machineries.

(b) All State Government Departments should clearly mention in the

advertisement notice for filling up any vacancies to have the clause

that „Candidates canvassing directly or indirectly in any form shall

be liable to be disqualified.‟

(c) As envisaged in the RTI Act, 2005, the State Government is to

ensure that all Government Departments should mandatorily

display the list of all such candidates who have directly or indirectly

canvas in any form and that they have been disqualified. This

voluntary disclosure of information to the public would serve as a

strong future deterrent.

*** *** ***

6.6 Statement of the then Director, E & ME, (now Director of School

Education & Literacy):

Shri J.D.Sangma, MCS, Director of School Education & Literacy,

Meghalaya, Shillong attended the hearing on 02/07/2013 and submitted

his statement which is reproduced below:



(i) That the procedures for selection of Assistant Teachers in

Government LP Schools was first they have to pass the SET (State

Eligibility Test) which was conducted by the Directorate of

Educational Research & Training, Meghalaya, Shillong. Thereafter,

the successful candidates were to appear the personal interview to

be conducted by the Selection Committee of the District and Sub-

division concerned as prescribed in the modified Government

Notification dated 24th November, 2008.

(ii) The Members of the Selection Committee were nominated by the

Directorate of Educational Research & Training, Meghalaya,

Shillong and the Chairman by the Deputy Commissioner of the

concerned district as per Government Notification which also

includes one member i.e. the Headmaster of Government Upper

Primary School as one of the member to be nominated by the then

Directorate of Elementary & Mass Education, Meghalaya, Shillong.

(iii) As regards to result of the Shillong (Sadar) Sub-division, I wish to

state that after receiving complaints from some candidates and

parents about the anomaly and irregular conducting of interviews,

the Directorate made a preliminary enquiry and found that the

Interview conducted by Selection Committee at Shillong was

irregular as the Members were not as per the composition of the

Committee constituted by the Government in the Education

Department vide the Notification dated 24/11/2008.

(iv) It was also a fact that the Selection Committee conducted the

Personal Interview in the absence of the Chairman authorised for

the purpose and that the Member Secretary, Shri A.Sun, the then

Joint Director of Elementary & Mass Education, has himself acted

as Chairman. There were also sittings when Interviews was

conducted by only two members. Later after a lapse of few days,

the matter had gone to the knowledge of the public.

(v) In view of the above and in good faith, it was considered then as

necessary to review the entire result and score sheets submitted by

the Joint Director and Member Secretary of the Committees. The

fact remains that convening the Interview would mean time

consuming and there would be public resentment and whole

process cannot be completed within December 2009. Hence, the

Directorate decided to review the entire result without re-convening

the Personal Interview. While reviewing and re-checking the result,

utmost care was taken to see that all genuine candidates furnished

by the Member Secretary is considered in the select list.

(vi) As the declared vacancy is 81 and number recommended is only

79, it was decided to add more names of successful candidates to

the list.

(vii) On the advice of the then Hon‟ble Minister of Education, Dr.

A.Lyngdoh, a number of candidates were added into the list making

the total eligible candidates to 180 to be published in the near

future as second list.

(viii) I carried out this exercise of reviewing the Select List in consultation

with the then Hon‟ble Minister of Education on her own verbal

orders.



(ix) I also wish to mention here that this review exercise have not

deprived any of the candidates recommended by the Selection

Committee of East Khasi Hills, Shillong Sadar.

(x) However, it is not a fact that we have erased or removed the name

of the candidates recommendation by the said Committee but only

few minor corrections on errors and omissions to make the score

sheet free of errors were made and hence correcting fluid was

used.

(xi) Further, I wish to mention here that the serial numbers were

jumbled up and interchanged to give preferential in order of merit to

the candidates recommended by the different MLAs and Ministers

on the advice of the then Hon‟ble Minister of Education herself.

However, this interchange of serial order was affected only among

candidates who secured the same marks.

(xii) It is also a fact that experiences marks of few candidates

recommended by some Ministers were added in the score sheet

just to put them in the first and second waiting list but not in the

select list. This has not in any way deprived the candidates from the

list who were originally selected but it is a fact that there was a little

displacement of the serial order of the merit list due to addition of

few candidates into the list who were given preferential.

(xiii) I am also to state that the reviewing of the list of qualified

candidates was done in the Minister‟s residence only for the

Shillong Centre which was misconstrued by the CBI who made to

appear in the CBI Report that it was done for all Centres in the

State.

(xiv) As regards the result of other Selection Committees namely, Jowai,

Amlarem and Shillong, the Directorate received several requests

from Ministers of the State Government for inclusion of the names

of their candidates. We verified the list given by them and found

that most of their names already appeared in the select lists. There

were names that did not appear in the select lists. However, as

requested by the respective Ministers and Parliamentary

Secretaries of the area concerned, we inserted some of the names

to be in the waiting list by interpolating the marks in the Score

Sheets.

(xv) As regards to the main select list given by the Selection Committee

East Khasi Hills, Shillong Sadar, some of the serial numbers of the

candidates who scored similar marks were jumbled up to give

preference to the candidates recommended by the Ministers. This

however, have not affected the names of the candidates who were

already in the list but it is a fact that there were slight changes in

their serial order in the merit list as well as the names of some

candidates which were displaced and appeared in the waiting list.

This have not resulted in the deletion or exclusion of the names as

recommended by the Selection Committee. Many of the names that

appeared in the waiting list were not published because of the

limited vacancies of post. However, it was expected that their

names would be considered for appointment in the subsequent

vacancies in the near future.



(xvi) As regards with the list of Ministries/MLAs/MDCs and others who

have made a recommendation, the CBI has seized the file from the

Office during my absence on official tour to New Delhi. Later, when

I came back I was called by the CBI office and the records and files

seized by them were shown to me and I was asked to sign in the

seizure list prepared by them. Later on, after few days a statement

on my behalf was also prepared and finalised by the CBI

themselves and presented to me for my signature. I read the

statement and requested the Investigation Officer of the CBI to

correct the statements which were not relevant and incorrectly

recorded. The Investigation Officer agreed to correct the statement

as requested by me and therefore I appended my signature in the

last page of the statement. However, today the 2nd of July 2013, I

saw the CBI report and my statement for the first time as a

misconstrued fact.

6.7 Comments on the Statement of Director, E & ME, (now DSE&L):

The statement submitted by Shri J.D. Sangma, Director of School

Education & Literacy was examined by the Committee and the following

are the comments:

(i) As per para 6.6 (iii) & (iv), the Committee comments that

over and above the comment made at para 3.19 of this

report, the Committee felt that the process of the Personal

Interview of Shillong Centre should have been considered

invalid by the Director on the ground that the Chairperson

was not present in all the Interview dates and the marks in

the provision allotted to the Chairperson was given by the

Member Secretary which amount to impersonation and

illegal. This was also confirmed by his enquiry report on the

matter.

(ii) As per para 6.6 (v), the Committee found that the reviewing

and rechecking of the result/merit of Shillong Centre is

contradicting to the statement made by the Director as it is

found that out of 79 candidates recommended by the

Selection Committee of Shillong Centre, only 19 candidates

ware retained and 60 candidates were deleted and replaced

by other candidates as shown in the Statement 1 & 2 of

Shillong Centre of this Report.

(iii) It is noted that the statement of the Director at para 6.6 (vi)

to add more names of successful candidates to the list since

the vacancies is 81 is not true as it is found that the list

published by the Directorate is completely different from the

list submitted by the Member Secretary of the above Centre.

(iv) The statement at para 6.6 (vii), the Committee cannot

comment as the list of 180 candidates to be published in the

near future is not available for scrutiny.

(v) The statement of the Director at para 6.6 (viii) contradicts

with the statement of the then Education Minister, as she

completely denied that she has given order to the above

Director to review the list recommended by the Selection

Committee.



(vi) The statement at para 6.6 (ix) is not true as it is seen that the

review exercise has deprived 60 candidates of their rightful

place in the select list.

(vii) The statement at para 6.6(x) is found to be false as it is seen

that there was large scale tampering by applying white

correcting fluid in the score sheets of the five Centres under

scrutiny.

(viii) The jumbling up and interchanging of serial numbers of

candidates are found to be contradictory and highly

confusing as it is found that only 19 candidates were

retained in the select list published by the Directorate.

(ix) In para 6.6 (xii), the Director admits that on the basis of the

recommendation made by some Ministers, some candidates

were added in the list but after comparing with the original

list, it is found that some candidates without any

recommendations were deleted and replaced by the

candidates having recommendations.

(x) The facts stated in para 6.6 (xiii) that the list of candidates of

Shillong Centre was reviewed in the residence of the then

Education Minister contradicts with the statement of the said

Minister who categorically denied that she was not aware of

such activities.

(xi) The admission of the Director in para 6.6 (xiv) that he has

included the names of the candidates recommended by the

respective Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in the

select list and as well as in the waiting list of different

Centres by interpolating the marks in the score sheets is

found to be true.

(xii) The statement in para 6.6 (xv) that the main select list

submitted by the Selection Committee of Shillong Centre

were not deleted and excluded is found to be false as it is

detected that 60 candidates were replaced from the original

list.

(xiii) The statement made at para 6.6(xvi) regarding the list of

Ministers/MLAs/MDCs who made the recommendations and

which was seized by the CBI is found to be true as the

above list was made available to the Committee for scrutiny.

(xiv) From the CBI‟s Report, the Committee has ascertained the

fact that it can draw an inference from all the above stated

facts that there are large scale manipulations in the whole

selection process. There are even instances of hard

clinching evidences under Jowai Centre on the body of the

recommendation letter of the public representatives where

hand written instructions as “bring up”, “to be listed” “bring up

from Sl. 38” etc., given on the column of each favoured

candidates. In all such cases of hand written

instructions/notes, the Committee recommends that the

statement wherever such handwritten notes are seen must



be send up to the expert in the field for verification and

authentication.

6.8 List of Public Representatives recommending candidates:

The Committee scrutinized the documents made available by the

CBI‟s Office, Shillong related with the lists of Public Representatives who

recommended candidates to the then Education Minister and Director,

E&ME. As per Advertisement dated 10/12/2008 and contained in 2.29 (iii)

of this Report which states that „Candidates canvassing directly or

indirectly in any form shall be liable to be disqualified‟, the Committee

recommends to the Government to take appropriate steps to see that all

the candidates recommended by the Public Representatives concerned

whether appointed or not stands disqualified.

The act of the public representatives in recommending their

favoured candidates has in a way directly or indirectly vitiated or otherwise

interfered with the whole selection process. This has been viewed by the

Committee as malpractices and nepotism to pressurize the authority

concerned to favour those candidates sponsored and backed by them.

This has also resulted in denying appointment to deserving and

meritorious candidates and conversely, in selecting unqualified meritless

and undeserving candidates. The detailed lists are indicated as per

Statement 1 & 2 below:

Statement – 1

List of Public Representatives as per CBI‟s Report and Nos. of candidates

recommended by them and addressed to the then Minister of Education,

Government of Meghalaya

Sl. No.

Name of Public

Representative who recommended

Nos. of

Candidates recommended

Centres from where the

recommended candidates appeared

Remarks

1.

Shri R.C. Laloo, Minister of Agriculture, forest & Environment, Govt of Meghalaya

37

Jowai

Detail lists of candidates seized and available in the CBI Office, Shillong

2.

Shri Sniawbhalang Dhar, Parliamentary Secretary, Govt of Meghalaya

30

Jowai

- do -

3.

Shri P.L. Tariang,Ex-MLA, Co-Chairman, State Dev. Reforms Commission, Govt. of Meghalaya

29

Amlarem

- do -

4.

Shri Ronnie V Lyngdoh, MLA, Government of Meghalaya

15

Shillong

- do -

5.

Shri Remington Pyngrope, Parliament Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya

47

Shillong

- do -

6. Shri Charles Pyngrope, Speaker, Government of

3

Shillong

- do -



Meghalaya

7. Shri Sanbor Shullai, MLA, Dy. Speaker, Government of Meghalay

4

Shillong

- do -

8.

Shri Prestone Tynsong, MLA, Government of Meghalaya

20

Shillong

- do -

9.

Shri A.L.Hek, MLA Government of Meghalaya

7

Shillong

- do -

10.

Shri Limison D. Sangma, Minister of State, Government of Meghalaya

34 3

Dadenggre

Tura

- do -

11.

Shri Don Kupar Massar, Minister of Excise, Government of Meghalaya

2

Shillong

- do -

12.

Shri F.War, Advisor of Chief Minister, Government of Meghalaya

3

Jowai

- do -

13.

Shri M.Pariat, MDC, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council Meghalaya

11

Jowai

- do -

14.

Shri J.A. Lyngdoh, Minister of Food & Civil Supply, Government of Meghalaya

6

Shillong

- do -

15.

Shri L.Malngiang, Dy Chief Executive Member, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Meghalaya

4

Shillong

- do -

Statement – 2

List of the Public Representatives who have recommended to the DEME as per

findings of the Committee from original documents in the CBI‟s Office

Sl. No.

Name of Public

Representative who recommended

Nos. of

Candidates recommended

Centres from where the

recommended candidates appeared

Remarks

1.

Shri Augustin D.Marak, Ex-MLA

10

Dadenggre

Detail lists of candidates seized and available in the CBI Office, Shillong

2. Shri Clement Marak, MLA, Government of Meghalaya

26 8

Dadenggre Tura

- do -

3.

Shri Ismail R Marak, Ex-MLA, Government of Meghalaya

9

Tura

- do -

4. Shri Sayeedullah Nongrum, Ex-MLA, Government of Meghalaya

12

Dadenggre

- do –”



The HLSC thereafter, referred to the Terms of Reference II and III

which are of formal nature and finally stated its conclusion at Part-9. In

paragraph 9.1, the Committee reiterated its recommendations of the

preceding paragraphs as noticed hereinabove and made some further

remarks in paragraphs 9.2 and 9.3 which deserve to be taken note of and

are reproduced hereunder:-

“9.2 After an exhaustive scrutiny works, the Committee noted with concern that the method of conducting of the recruitment and selection process for the post of Assistant Teachers in Government LP Schools was done in an unprofessional way which has created total chaos and confusion.

Therefore, the Committee is of a strong view that in future the

recruitment of teachers should be done by an independent Recruitment

Board consisting of Professionals in the field of education and that the

above recruitment board should be well structured and organised in order

that the process of recruitment is transparent and open for public

dissemination of information related with the recruitment process so as not

to pervert justice or show impartiality.

Besides the above five Centres reviewed and scrutinized by the

Committee and considering the facts that the scale of irregularities is so

extensive as indicated in the Table at para 4.7 of this Report, and in the

best interest of efficiency of the system of delivery in the Education

Department, the Committee is also of the opinion that it would not be out

of place to recommend to the Government the need to initiate

Departmental Inquiry in other selection Centres of the District concerned

too even though there are no complaints and records.

9.3 In the given timeframe and deadline, it is required to place on

record that in view of the nature and extent of illegalities and irregularities,

some eligible and deserving candidates may have been left out unnoticed

during the course of the scrutiny by the Committee, the only way out

would be for the State Government to take a view that if the

Recommendations/Comments of the Committee in all the Centres are not

workable, the only way out for the Government would be to perhaps

cancel the whole selection process and initiate fresh recruitment drive to

all the vacancies. However, due care and diligence must be taken by the

Government in the Education Department to ensure that schools are

functioning normally.”

After having extensively taken note of the crucial contents and

features of the report of HLSC, we may take note of another facet of the

matter; and that relates to lodging of FIRs against the manipulations in the

selection process in question.

The FIR/FIRs

During the course of submissions, when the facts concerning a



pending FIR relating to this matter were pointed out, we had requisitioned

the case diary pertaining to Laitumkhrah PS Case No.62 (7) of 2011 and

have perused the same.

It is noticed that the said FIR was filed by one of the candidates of

Shillong Sadar Centre alleging, inter alia, that she was cheated and

deprived of job opportunity with erasure of her marks in the compilation

sheet. On these allegations, the said Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No.62 (7) of

2011 was registered on 20.07.2011 for offence under Section 408 IPC. In

this FIR, the Investigating Officer interrogated the then Director of

Elementary and Mass Education, who informed about the order passed by

the learned Single Judge of this Court for inquiry by CBI and also provided

photocopies of the documents relating to the case. The fact of the

Chairperson for Shillong Centre having not turned out for conducting the

interview was also noticed by the Investigating Officer and then, some of

the board members were examined. However, thereafter, the Investigating

Officer was changed and it was noticed that some of the documents had

either been sent to CBI or had been seized by CBI and then, the Division

Bench had allowed the constitution of High Level Scrutiny Committee; and,

as per the Directorate, after receiving the documents from CBI, the same

were to be handed over to HLSC and were to be made available to the

Investigating Officer only thereafter. Interestingly, in relation to this very

selection process, other persons had also lodged FIRs and in that regard,

an order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in C.R. Case

No.1287 of 2012 on 04.12.2012 that on the request made on behalf of the

Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, the FIRs

submitted by others may also be included as part of the case record of

Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No.62 (7) of 2011 with insertion of Sections

120B/167/466/34 IPC; and, accordingly, the Superintendent of Police



informed the Assistant General of Police (R) by his letter dated 25.07.2013

that the Court had granted the prayer for insertion of other offences under

other complaints. The order dated 04.12.2012 as passed by the Judicial

Magistrate reads as under:-

“4.12.2012

C.R. Put up today. Seen and perused compliance report filed by S.P. East Khasi Hills District Shillong submitted by P.P. Shri I.C. Jha before this Court stating therein that the case on he matter has already been registered earlier vide Laitumkhrah PS Case No.62 (7) 2011 U/s 408 IPC and is under investigation and that the FIR submitted by Smti Agnes Kharshiing and Smti Angela Rngad may be included as part of the case records of the above mentioned case and treated as supplementary FIR as the cause of action and subject matter is one and the same thing. The said Superintendent of Police prayed that section 120B/167/466/34 IPC may also inserted in addition to the above section following the disclosure of offences in the FIR submitted by Smti Agnes Kharshiing and Smti Angela Rangad.

Prayer is hereby considered and allowed.

Inform concern accordingly.

Application stands disposed off.”

The Investigating Officer, thereafter, proceeded to examine some

other witnesses in the year 2013 and then, discussed the matter with the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI relating to the documents which

were in possession of CBI. Thereafter, an application was made on

04.06.2014 to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for a direction to the

Superintendent of Police, CBI for handing over the seized documents and

this application was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on

19.06.2014. However, on behalf of the CBI, an application was filed before

the Magistrate concerned pointing out that the direction for handing over of

documents to the State Police would be in conflict with the order dated

21.10.2011 as passed by the High Court. The learned Magistrate granted

this application by her order dated 25.09.2014; and, while recalling the

earlier order dated 19.06.2014, left it open for the State Police to approach

the High Court for necessary orders. It appears that thereafter, in the years

2014 and 2015, the matter kept on lingering between the Investigating



Officer and Senior Government Advocate for filing appropriate petition in

the High Court for procurement of documents. In the meantime, a writ

petition was filed in this Court alleging want of action in the said FIR, being

WP (C) No.161 of 2016: Smti. Agnes Kharshiing v. State of Meghalaya.

However, a learned Single Judge of this Court declined to entertain the

said writ petition at the given stage and disposed it of by the order dated

03.10.2016, essentially in view of the fact that the issues involved in the

case were pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. All said and done,

so far the main matter in Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No.62 (7) of 2011 was

concerned, it remained stranded with exchange of communications in the

police department and with change of Investigating Officers. This had been

the status of Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No.62 (7) of 2011 when the case

diary was produced before us.

Rival submissions and propositions

As noticed, in this litigation, which has expanded beyond an ordinary

length, several parties standing at different footing and status have got

entangled. The private parties herein could be broadly categorized in

three: one being the set of such candidates who were declared

unsuccessful in the abovementioned four Centres namely, Shillong, Tura,

Jowai and Amlarem and who initiated the litigation in this Court; second

being the set of such candidates who were selected in the impugned

selection process but whose services were terminated pursuant to the

report of HLSC; and third being the other candidates who aspire induction

in service, essentially in displacement of the tainted. On the other hand is

the State Government, basically answerable to all the issues that have

arisen in the matter. Parallel to these civil litigations, an FIR relating to the

same selection process remains pending for investigation wherein, several

other complaints and allegations have been clubbed.



The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter to this Court to

have a fresh look in the light of the two reports of CBI and HLSC and for

decision afresh. Having regard to the subject-matter, we have heard

learned counsel representing different private parties as also the learned

Advocate General for the State with the assisting Government Advocates

at excessive length. Varying and vast submissions have been made before

us by the learned counsel for the parties but in all fairness, none has

disputed the basic requirements of law that the purity of a public selection

process remains non-negotiable. For a proper comprehension of the

submissions made and propositions put forward by the learned counsel for

the parties, we may first summarize the material points urged by the

learned counsel appearing for the respective candidates.

The submissions on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for

those unselected candidates who initiated this litigation and approached

the Court after issuance of the select list can be divided in two sects: One

being on behalf of the candidates who have been found eligible and

unblemished by HLSC. It has been submitted that these candidates

deserve to be appointed for having been found entitled thereto. On the

other hand, on behalf of such candidates who are otherwise untainted but

have not been found eligible by HLSC, it is submitted that the HLSC report

deserves to be set aside qua them and they deserve to be appointed.

The large chunk of the private parties in these matters is of the

second set, being the persons whose services were terminated pursuant to

the report of HLSC. Vast and multifarious submissions by different learned

counsel on behalf of such candidates could be summarized as follows: (i)

that these candidates have been victimized in this matter and have been

branded as tainted without hearing before making of the report, whether by

CBI or HLSC; (ii) that the termed „tainted‟ is stigmatic and violates the right



of the person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, a

candidate cannot be termed as tainted without adequate opportunity of

hearing and rebuttal; (iii) that proper evidence were not led in the inquiry of

CBI or HLSC and due process of law was not followed before issuing the

termination orders; (iv) that there were no grounds on which these

candidates could have been termed as tainted because they had no role in

any of the alleged manipulations; (v) that no show case notice was served

before termination of their services; (vi) that those who received show

cause notices submitted their replies but the same were not taken into

consideration; (vii) that the reports of CBI and HLSC were not furnished to

the candidates before termination of their services and the termination

orders were issued in an arbitrary manner; (viii) that there had been

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as all the

candidates involved in the selection have not been treated in the same

way; (ix) that the judicial powers of adjudication and finding should not

have been delegated to CBI or HLSC; (x) that there are stark

contradictions in the reports of CBI and HLSC; (xi) that the HLSC was

constituted in contravention of the judgment dated 16.08.2012 and the

officers of the same department should not have been part thereof; (xii)

that the HLSC did not stand up to the expectation of the High Court and

carried out the process with oblique intents to save certain persons directly

responsible for interference in the process; (xiii) that there had been

contradictions in the notification as regards the cut-off date on which the

age of the candidate because as per the notification dated 24.11.2008 it

should have been first day of January of the concerned year but as per the

advertisement dated 10.12.2008, the age was to be reckoned as on first

day of December 2008; (xiv) that several over-age candidates have been

appointed and continued even contrary to the terms of the said notification



and advertisement.

On behalf of the third set of candidates, who later on approached

this Court seeking induction in service, the submissions have been that

they also deserve the same benefit as arising out of the judgment dated

16.08.2012; and they deserve to be placed in the select list in

displacement of the tainted candidates.

During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respective

candidates have referred to the decisions in R. v. Sussex Justices:

[1923] All E.R. Rep. 233; Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.), Ltd. v.

Lannon and Ors: [1968] 3 All E.R. 304; Onkar Lal Bajaj & Ors v. Union

of India & Anr: (2003) 2 SCC 673; Joginder Pal & Ors v. State of

Punjab & Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 644; Benny T.D. & Ors v. Registrar of

Cooperative Societies & Anr: (1998) 5 SCC 269 as also the other

decisions including those in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Sadananda

Halo (supra).

The learned Advocate General with his associates has duly replied

to the submissions made on behalf of the private parties. We may take

note of the fact that the basic and current factual aspects concerning these

cases were pointed out by the learned Advocate General on 13.04.2017 as

follows:

“The learned Advocate General submits that as regards the other factual aspects, the present officers in the department have tried to collate all the information and primarily, it has been instructed that in the five centres at Shillong, Jowai, Ampati, Tura and Dadengre, as per the report of the Committee, 268 appointments were found to be questionable/tainted but it was found that 17 of them had not been appointed due to non-availability of vacancy and 1 had already resigned; and of the remaining 250, further 4 resigned whereas services of other 246 were terminated. The learned Advocate General further submits that 114 persons were retained in service at said five centres and 3 were appointed later at the Shillong Centre, as they were found eligible but were not selected earlier. According to the learned Advocate General, these five centres at present carry 248 vacancies.”

While justifying the orders of termination, the learned Advocate

General has essentially submitted: (i) that show cause notice was duly



issued by the Director, School Education and Literacy, Shillong to the

candidates who were found tainted by the HLSC; (ii) that in the

background of the facts and the nature of the allegations, it was not

necessary to call every tainted candidate individually to defend his/her

case; (iii) that the tainted candidates were the beneficiaries of the

manipulation in the score sheets and as such, their services were rightly

terminated in compliance with the judgment dated 16.08.2012; (iv) that the

termination orders were issued by the succeeding Director and not by the

Director against whom allegations were leveled; (v) that the tainted

candidates cannot claim parity with the candidates who are found genuine

and as such, the terminated candidates cannot pray for setting aside of the

entire selection process; (vi) that the unsuccessful candidates who did not

approach the Court earlier, and whose writ petitions were dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches, do not deserve any consideration at this

length of time; (vii) that the candidates who had participated in the

selecting process had accepted the terms and clauses of the

advertisement dated 10.12.2008 without challenging the same before any

Court of Law and are barred from raising any plea against the terms and

conditions of the advertisement.

The learned Advocate General has further submitted that the age of

the candidates who had been continuously serving as School Teachers for

not less than 5 years as on 24.11.2008 had been calculated as on

24.11.2003; and if they were found to be within the age limit of 18-27 years

(32 years for SC/ST) as on 24.11.2003, they were eligible to apply as per

Clause 1(d) of the advertisement dated 10.12.2008. Thus, according to the

learned Advocate General, the concerned candidates had rightly been

taken as eligible.



With reference to the aforesaid facts and submissions, the learned

Advocate General has strenuously argued that there had been nothing

wrong in the action taken in pursuance to the recommendation of HLSC

and in compliance of the order passed by this Court and such action of the

State Government deserves to be upheld. The learned Advocate General

has also submitted that the Government may be allowed to take steps for

filling up the vacancies which have been arisen after the aforesaid

termination of the services of the candidates of the year 2014 as also other

vacancies which have been occurred due to retirement/resignation of

some of the teachers.

The learned Advocate General has referred to the decision in the

case of Pathumma v. State of Kerala: AIR 1978 SC 771 in support of the

submissions that the terminated candidates cannot claim equal rights with

untainted candidates and cannot seek cancellation of the entire process.

The learned Advocate General has also referred to the decision in

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors: (2003) 2

SCC 111 to submit that the decisions cited by the respective counsel for

the private parties are not applicable to the present case for material

difference of facts.

We may point out one facet of material facts that has surfaced

during the course of submissions that several such candidates who were

found tainted were yet continuing and their services were not terminated;

and further that even some tainted candidates were later on inducted in

service by way of so-called ad hoc or contractual engagement. Several

affidavits, counter, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder were filed in this regard in WA

Nos.52 of 2011, 57 of 2011, 63 of 2011 and 65 of 2011. We need not

elaborate on all such affidavits but suffice would be to take note of the



facts as finally noticed during the course of hearing. We have indicated the

crux of these factors in the order dated 12.06.2017 that reads as under:-

“12.06.2017

Learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 63 of 2011 informs that the appellant No. 88, Shri Strong Pillar Tang has since expired. At request, the name of the said appellant stands deleted from the array of parties. A note to that effect be put in the cause title. As permitted by the last order dated 01.06.2017, a sur-rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of Meghalaya, in reply to the affidavits filed in WA Nos. 52 of 2011, 57 of 2011, 63 of 2011 and 65 of 2011. In the affidavit so filed on behalf of the Government, inter alia, it has been asserted that the submissions made in the affidavit filed in relation to WA No. 57 of 2011 about the continuance of certain candidates were not correct inasmuch as the referred candidates were not recommended for termination by the High Level Scrutiny Committee. As regards the other affidavit filed in relation to WA No. 52 of 2011, it has, inter alia, been stated that,

“With respect to the candidates whose names figure at Sl. No. 1-6, 8, 9 and 10, the answering deponent states that the High Level Scrutiny Committee found that there was overwriting in their score sheets but due to the fact that they were not appointed in January, 2010, it skipped the notice of the respondent authorities that they had been appointed later on adhoc basis and as such steps for terminating the said candidates could not be taken”. Further, as regards the affidavit filed in WA No. 63 of 2011 and 65

of 2011, while stating about one candidate that her name does not appear in the HLSC report, a cursory statement has been made as regards the other candidates as under:

“......However, with respect to the candidates whose names figure at Sl. No. 2-9, the deponent admits that they are serving as Assistant Teachers in Government Lower Primary Schools”

The above averments on the part of the Government being yet wanting in particulars and specification, we have queried about the status of these persons, to which the learned Advocate General submits that as per his instructions, most the referred persons have been appointed temporarily and on adhoc basis for a period of 59 days or so but their services have been continued from time to time in the interest of the students. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, particularly who have filed the affidavits in WA No. 52 of 2011 and 57 of 2011, may submit a synopsis with clarification about the particulars of the referred candidates and the recommendations with the observations in their regard in the reports of the CBI and HLSC.

All the learned counsel have otherwise concluded on their submissions. Put up for filing the aforementioned clarifications/synopsis on 16.06.2017, as prayed.” (underlining supplied for emphasis)

Before proceeding further, we deem it apposite to point out that

during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties have also

made various submissions pointing out discrepancies in the report of



HLSC compared to the report of CBI. We have found most of such

submissions correct on facts after having perused the two reports as also

the accompanying documents including the score sheets. In all fairness,

learned Advocate General has not attempted to justify any such

discrepancy and has been forthright in accepting the facts which remain

indisputable and undeniable.

Having thus taken note of all the relevant background aspects, the

essential features of the reports of CBI and HLSC and the material part of

the submissions made, we may embark upon the relevant issues that have

arisen in the matter.

The exercise of HLSC is flawed

Before dealing with the other aspects relating to the selection

process in question as emerging from the records placed before us and

from the said reports of CBI and HLSC, we find it rather necessary to

indicate flaws in the composition of HLSC as also in the exercise

undertaken by it.

It remains indisputable that all the three members of the Scrutiny

Committee so constituted by the Principal Secretary to the Government of

Meghalaya in its Education Department were, in fact, the functionaries of

the Government in this very department i.e., the Education Department.

This very department was responsible for the selection process in question

and there were serious allegations of unfairness and manipulations. On the

bold claims as made on behalf of the State Government, the Division

Bench of the Gauhati High Court assumed that the Government would

honestly ensure a proper inquiry in the matter and take the matter to its

logical conclusion. The Division Bench, therefore, left it for the Principal

Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in its Education Department to

constitute a committee of appropriate officials. It was never the order of the



Division Bench that the Committee would only be comprised of the

persons of this very department. While acting on such directions of the

Division Bench which were issued essentially on the basis of its own

assertions, the Government, if acting fair and forthright, would have taken

care to include at least some such officers/persons in the Committee, who

were not connected with the Education Department. The composition of

HLSC fell short of propriety, even if we are not construing it as entirely

illegal. However, this aspect is, perforce, required to be indicated for the

reason that we have found several such shortcomings in the conduct of

HLSC, which were avoidable and would have been avoided by any

independent, impartial, candid and forthright inquiring body.

Another but fundamental flaw had been that HLSC did not, truly and

unfaithfully, carry out its mandate and avoided the uncomfortable issues.

The Division Bench had specifically directed that the matter of “selected”

as also “unselected” candidates shall be examined in such an inquiry. We

have taken note of the report of HLSC with deep dissatisfaction that the

HLSC chose not to examine the matters of unselected candidates.

Due examination of all the cases, of all the candidates of all the

Centres under reference, was the basic requirement of any objective

inquiry in the matter. The question had not only been of manipulation in

relation to the marks of the selected candidates but, in order to make such

a selection possible, the manipulations had to be, and in fact had been, in

the marks of other candidates also. HLSC, thus, carried out half of its

mandate and left the other half unattended.

Apart from the above, another major and rather disturbing feature is

that HLSC has failed to live up to the spirit of the terms of its reference as

framed on the basis of the judgment of Division Bench. As noticed, the

Division Bench had, inter alia, indicated in its judgment that the State



Government will not spare any officer or authority, howsoever high, if found

indulging in deliberate complicity in the matter of “vitiating or otherwise

interfering” with the selection process. The Committee indeed found that

the public representatives had made several recommendations for

appointment of the candidates. In this regard, the Committee chose to put

the guarded and softer expressions in its report while saying that “the act

of the public representatives in recommending their favourite candidates

has in a way directly or indirectly vitiated or otherwise interfered with the

whole selection process”. The Committee, of course, viewed this as

malpractice and nepotism resulting in denying the appointment of

deserving candidates and selecting the unqualified, meritless and

undeserving. The Committee reproduced the list of the public

representatives, who made recommendations but stopped at that. Even as

regards the Minister of Education, the Committee noted her statement but

then, made generalized comments that there were innumerable instances

of irregularities and that nepotism and favouritism on the part of the

persons holding public office, if allowed to continue would only result in

bleak future for the human resource potentialities; and thereafter, made the

recommendations only to the effect that the State Government should

clearly mention in the advertisement that the candidates canvassing

directly or indirectly shall be disqualified and to display the list of such

candidates. In contrast to this, the Committee made rather scathing

comments on the statements of the Director concerned in paragraph 6.7 of

the report. Put in a nutshell, it is but clear that in relation to the terms of

Reference I-(C), the Committee, though did not deny the manipulations

and even interferences by public representatives but stopped short of

recommending concrete action against the concerned persons.

Apart from the above, during the course of hearing we have noticed



several other flaws in the exercise carried out by the HLSC. In this regard,

we may refer to the parts of order sheets drawn on 23.05.2017 and

24.05.2017 as follows:

“……. With reference to the submissions of learned counsel, Mr. HL Shangreiso in relation to WP(C) No. 72 of 2014, we have noticed that the reports in relation to one of the candidates at Shillong Sardar Centre as earlier made by the CBI and later on made by the HLSC are at stark variance where the CBI has reported that there were overwriting on her marks and the initial marks of „41‟ were changed to „43‟; but in relation to the same candidate, it has been suggested in HLSC report as if the total marks were 41 and there was no overwriting on the marks. We have taken out the original score sheets from the papers filed by the learned senior counsel for the CBI and after having examined the original score sheet in relation to the candidate concerned, we have also permitted the learned AG to examine the same. The learned AG could not deny the position that the contents of the HLSC report as regards the total number of marks of the concerned candidate are not correct and even the suggestions made by the HLSC, that there were no overwriting on marks, remain questionable…..” “…….. During the course of submissions, another obscurity is found in the HLSC report in relation to the candidates of Jowai Centre wherein, their Roll Nos./Sl. Nos. in score-sheets are stated but no such Roll Nos./Sl. Nos. are found in the original score-sheets. In this regard, the learned Advocate General submits that the concerned authorities of the department also are unable to clarify…..”

In view of what has been observed above, we find most of the

questions raised on behalf of the private parties on the report of HLSC to

be justified and in our view, the report is flawed inasmuch as: (i) the

composition of HLSC was not as per the spirit of the order dated

16.08.2012 and at least some person not connected with the Education

Department ought to have been inducted as an independent member in

the Committee; (ii) the HLSC, whatever composed, did not carry out whole

of the mandate of Division Bench, by not examining the cases of the

unselected candidates; (iii) the HLSC did not make serious attempts to

submit cogent and logical recommendations as regards Point I-(C) of the

Terms of Reference, relating to interference by other persons vitiating the

process; and (iv) the scrutiny by HLSC had been not free from several

errors.



In an overall comprehension of the matter, we have not an iota of

doubt that the exercise in the name of HLSC was farcical and was only a

cover-up, aimed at saving and shielding the persons who had, with

impunity, hijacked and polluted the system and who ought to have been

brought to be book and ought to have been sternly dealt with. As noticed,

in the first place, the Committee avoided scrutinizing all the candidates of

the Centres in question though it was under the mandate to do so.

Secondly, whatever was carried out, had been that of a superficial scrutiny

and some obvious cases of manipulations were left out. Thirdly and most

significantly, even after finding that public representatives had, in grossest

disregard of law and with impunity, made the recommendations; and the

officers altered the score sheets and spoiled the entire system, the

persons making recommendations were conveniently left out by

suggesting that the State Government should take steps so as to prevent

such happenings in future. It is noticed that at every relevant place where it

was required to reach to the heart of the matter and to render logical

findings with candid recommendation, HLSC adopted the softer route of

suggesting removal of some tainted candidates and retention of untainted;

however, the painters of such taint and the perpetrators of such

contamination, despite having been identified with documentary evidence,

were simply left out.

We were constrained to observe that had the said High Level

Scrutiny Committee been true to its task, the only logical course would

have been of scrapping the entire selection process in relation to the five

Centres in question with reasonable relaxation for participation in fresh

recruitment to the untainted candidates but at the same time, of adopting

civil as also criminal proceedings for proper investigation and trial of all the

persons involved in the scam, be it the instigators, be it the motivators, be



it the operators, be it the manipulators and be it the beneficiaries. Similarly,

if the Government concerned was true to its duties as also faithful to its

bold proclamations before the Division Bench in the earlier round of

litigation5, it would have, after receiving the half-hearted report of HLSC,

taken the things to their logical conclusion by issuing necessary orders for

booking the polluters as also for inquiry in relation to the other centres too.

However, the HLSC as also the State Government belied the faith reposed

in them by the Court in the judgment dated 16.08.2012.

Having said so and despite having found that the High Level

Scrutiny Committee did not faithfully discharge all its duties and

responsibilities, we do not propose to reject its report altogether because

most of the facts found therein are apparent on the face of the record and

remain indisputable; and hence, the consequences ought to follow.

THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE FIVE CENTRES IN QUESTION

IS VITIATED AND IS REQUIRED TO BE ANNULLED

We have minutely examined the report of the CBI as also the report

of the HLSC and a substantial part of the records forming the basis of such

reports; and have clearly come to the conclusion that so far the five

Centres in question are concerned, the selection process stands vitiated;

and could only be annulled. This is for the following principal reasons:

Direct interference by the Public Representatives

1. The first and foremost reason for which we have no hesitation in

concluding that the entire selection process of the five Centres stands

vitiated is the rather undeniable fact that the public representatives indeed

interfered with the same to a large extent; and with impunity.

On the facts that have surfaced, it is but evident that several of the

public representatives, who are otherwise entrusted by the society to

5 as noticed repeatedly in the judgment dated 16.08.2012



maintain the rule of law and to uphold the basic constitutional principles of

fair play, indulged in such open defiance of law that the selection process

was reduced to a mockery. The letters/communications from the public

representatives, mostly on their official letter-heads and bearing the

signatures, which came in possession of CBI, and which could not be

denied even by HLSC, unfailingly show that practically all such interloping

public representatives assumed that the selection process was their

personal property and they could ask for any share in it as desired. All the

relevant particulars like the names of such public representatives with the

offices held by them and the number of candidates recommended by them

have already been stated in the report of CBI as also in the report of HLSC

(as reproduced hereinbefore). It has also been found that almost all of their

recommendees were indeed appointed; and for this purpose, the score-

sheets were manipulated. Though, for the order proposed to be passed in

these matters, so as to handover investigation to CBI, we are not

pronouncing finally against any particular person but, the proper

comprehension of these matters would remain incomplete if the glaring

examples of interference in the selection process by the public

representatives are not indicated in this judgment. Under the compelling

circumstances, we need to indicate the manner of stating the

desires/recommendations in some of the letters/communications available

in record.

A Minister stated his desire in the letters dated 14.10.2009 and

18.11.2009 to the Director, Elementary & Mass Education in the following

terms:-

“I am enclosing herewith the list of candidates with serial numbers who have applied and already appeared interview for the post of Primary Teacher under different D.I. of Schools.

Under the above, I would be very grateful if you consider them for appointment of the same.”



One Political Secretary to the Chief Minister sent a letter dated

07.12.2009 to the Chief Minister to the following effect:

“I would like to inform you that there are 25(twenty-five) numbers of L.P.Teachers post which are lying vacant in my area i.e. Rajabala Constituency and the selection/exams to accommodate to these posts is over. As such, I would like to request you to kindly allow at least 12(twelve) numbers of posts to be filled from among the candidates from my area whose names and roll numbers are given below.”

One M.L.A. wrote to the Minister concerned in the letter dated

23.10.2009 as under:

“I shall be grateful if the following persons in the enclosed list, who appeared for interview, are considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers of Government L.P.Schools by the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, East Khasi Hills, Shillong.”

Another M.L.A. took care to write a so-called „confidential‟ letter to

the Minister concerned requesting in the following terms:

“Please help my candidates who had appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher in different Government L.P.School under my constituency as indicated below.”

One Co-Chairman of State Development Reforms Commission

asked the Minister concerned to do the needful help for the candidates

referred by him; and this was his top priority in the following terms:

“In connection with the viva-voce of SET Candidates, Centre – Amlarem, I on their behalf request your honour to do the needful help for them for getting selected and appointment as well. For your kind perusal and necessary action, the particulars of the candidates is enclosed herewith. Kindly treat this as my top most priority.”

Even a letter dated 01.07.2009 from Speaker, Meghalaya Legislative

Assembly is on record suggesting to the Minister concerned some of the

names of the candidates and the desire in the following terms:

“…I would be grateful if the candidates are appointed to the above mentioned post.”

One Co-Chairman of the State Planning Board sent letter dated

23.10.2009 to the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with Elementary &

Mass Education Department confirming that he had telephonic discussion



regarding the matter and was sending list of aspiring candidates of his

constituency. One M.L.A. sent a letter to the Minister concerned on

13.11.2009 stating “Pl. accommodate these seven names.” One

Parliamentary Secretary sent several letters dated 18.05.2009,

05.03.2009, 21.05.2009 and 19.10.2009 giving out several names of the

candidates at different blocks while stating that such candidates were

qualified and the names were being sent for consideration. One Minister

wrote to the concerned Minister with reference to their telephonic

discussion that he was sending the names of candidates for favour of

consideration. The Deputy Speaker suggested to the Minister concerned

under his communication dated 09.07.2009 that an order be passed to

appoint one particular person of his area who had appeared for interview.

The Deputy Speaker even issued specific directions in his letter dated

16.07.2009 to appoint certain candidates who had allegedly passed out the

interview in top position.

The examples are excessive in number. We have only indicated a

few of them to point out that the large number of public representatives

practically assumed that the matter of public employment by open

competition could also be dealt with by way of their desires and

recommendations. We refrain from commenting anything further in that

regard but would leave the matter to be thoroughly investigated by the

investigating agency without being influenced by any comments in these

proceedings. The comments herein are essentially for the purpose of our

findings that the things had been so rotten that any proposition to even

partially save such a selection process could only be at the cost of public

morality and character and, obviously, cannot be countenanced.

Large Scale Manipulations



The Second reason is on the basic facts that are manifest on the

face of the record that there had been gigantic manipulations by way of

obliterations, insertions and cuttings in the score sheets of the Centres in

question. The minute details in that regard have been specified in the

report of the CBI as also in the report of the HLSC; and after perusing the

said reports and after perusing a large number of score-sheets and other

documents, we have not even a wee bit of hesitation in recording a clear

finding that there had been large scale manipulations in the five Centres in

question and the entire selection process in relation to these Centres

cannot but be said to have been vitiated. In the given set of facts and

circumstances and looking to the enormity of manipulations, there will not

be any justification to make an attempt to sift the grain (if any) from the

chaff. It is noticed that the matters of alterations and manipulations had not

been few or far between; rather they had been too excessive in number,

practically acquiring an all-engulfing status. It had been a matter of such

inconceivable black deeds with white fluid where the entire process could

only be cancelled as being fraudulent. The CBI and HLSC in their reports

had not been wrong in indicating large scale tampering of the score

sheets. The only flaw in this regard on the part of HLSC had been that it

had missed out some more obvious errors.

In any case, the present one had not been a matter of some

irregularities here or there. In the given scenario, it is well-nigh impossible

to segregate the real clean one from the tainted. Hence, it is not possible

to accede to anyone‟s claim to be continued in appointment or to be

appointed on the ground that he/she had not been found blemished. It is

the entire selection process which is flawed. Once the entire process is

flawed, it could only be quashed.



The vastness and magnitude of manipulations could also be noticed

from the final summing up of the number of candidates found tainted by

the HLSC that had been a whopping 268 out of 365 appointed, which

means that nearly 70% of the appointed candidates are found tainted. This

is apart from the fact that the manipulations carried out in relation to the

alleged unsuccessful candidates have not been taken into account and it

has not been found as to how many of the other unselected candidates

were deprived in converse manner by downward revision of their marks. If

this process is taken up, it would be difficult to say even for the candidates

who are otherwise not found tainted that they were meritorious to be

selected in preference to the other unselected persons. The vastness of

manipulation has, thus, vitiated the entire process and the same could only

be quashed.

Other factors:

Though the aforementioned two factors namely, large scale

interference by the public representatives and large scale manipulations

are sufficient to conclude that the entire selection process in regard to

these five Centres is required to be quashed, yet, it appears appropriate to

point out some other factors which fortify the need to annul the entire

process.

Shillong Centre: So far Shillong Centre is concerned, apart from the

intermeddling and interpolations as noticed above, another astounding

feature is noticed; and that by itself nullifies the entire process. It had been

a mockery of sorts that for Shillong Centre, the alleged appointed

Chairman of the Selection Committee did not attend the interview and the

Member Secretary awarded two sets of marks, one for himself and another

for the Chairman! And, to cap it all, the score sheet was got signed from a

third person on the ground that she was nominated as Chairman; and the



said third person, though having never participated in the interview, indeed

signed (with alleged reluctance)!! It beats imagination that the officers

entrusted with public offices could at all conceive of such a methodology;

but, indeed, these facts are not in dispute at all. The entire selection

process of Shillong Centre turns out to be nothing but a farce; and is

required to be cancelled.

The aforementioned facts clearly occurred in the report of CBI and

were noticed by HLSC also in its report but, again, on this crucial aspect,

the HLSC went off-tangent and tried to hush up the issue. In relation to this

irreparable anomaly, rather absurdity, HLSC in para 3.9 of its comment

though found the position wholly unacceptable but left the matter at that

with the observations that the Directorate had accepted such interview of

Shillong Centre inspite of glaring anomalies!

Further, it has also occurred in para 4.10 of the report of CBI that the

Boards formed for interview of the candidates did not take the interview in

all the Centres. Apart from the absurdity in Shillong Centre, it is noticed

that the Boards which took the interview at Jowai, Amlarem and Dadengre

were also not comprising of the members who had been initially

nominated. Thus, the selection in these Centres also got vitiated at the

very inception.

Apart from the above, it has also come on record that several over-

age candidates were selected; and in fact, there had been rather an

incongruity in the cut-off date for age determination in the notification dated

24.11.2008 and the advertisement dated 10.12.2008. There are

innumerable cases where the marks awarded to a selected candidate on

the relevant parameter like experience are unjustified and in some cases

are even more than the maximum!6 The illegalities and anomalies are

6 As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 21.10.2011



rather endless in this matter. Having regard to the circumstances, instead

of further expanding on the same, it appears appropriate, for what has

been discussed above, to finally hold that the selection process in five

Centres in question is vitiated and is required to be annulled.

The fundamental principle in Sussex Justices‟ case (supra) that

justice should not only be done, but it should also be manifestly seen to be

done is neither of any quarrel nor of debate. Similarly, the principle in the

case of Metropolitan Properties (supra) on inferring bias due to interest

involved are also not of any debate.

So far the other decisions cited by the learned counsel for the

parties are concerned, it remains fundamental that the present case is

required to be decided on its peculiar and singular fact situation and

appropriate course of action has to be adopted after a comprehensive view

of the matter. The decision in Benny T.D. (supra) was rendered in the

circumstances that the allegations regarding large scale malpractice in

recruitment by a cooperative bank, were not based on essential

particulars. In the case of Sadananda Halo (supra), the Court came to the

conclusion that the complaint about postponement of the dates of interview

in the recruitment process was not justified and it was also not proper to

act on sample survey of the candidates through Judicial Officers. Therein,

it was also held that the unsuccessful candidates after participating in the

selection process could not indulge in a roving inquiry. In the case of

Onkar Lal Bajaj (supra) relating to en masse cancellation of the retail

outlets, LPG distributors etc., the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that such an

en masse cancellation without proper application of mind and with clubbing

of those against whom there was no allegation with the handful of those

against whom there was allegation of political connection and patronage

was arbitrary and resulted in treating unequals as equals.



In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) the allegations were

against the Chairman of Punjab Public Service Commission of getting

large number of persons appointed on extraneous considerations; and the

State Government decided to cancel the entire selection made for

recruitment to PCS (Executive Branch) and on the recommendation of

High Court, also terminated the services of the officers appointed to PCS

(Judicial Branch) against the vacancies of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

observed that it was difficult to accept that it was absolutely impossible for

the State to separate the innocent people from the tainted ones; and by

appointing an independent Scrutiny Committee, it was possible to sift the

evidence by an independent body. Thus, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court did

not approve of the en masse cancellation of appointment and found it just

and proper to direct the exercise for segregating the tainted from non-

tainted.

As regards judicial services, the matter did not finish with the

aforesaid decision but again travelled to the Supreme Court in the case of

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh v. State of Punjab

and Ors: (2010) 11 SCC 684, where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court found it

just and proper to allow appointment or re-appointment to the candidates

who had no blemish to answer but while making it clear that such a

decision was being rendered only to work out the equities and in view of

the earlier decision that tainted be separated from non-tainted. The

decision in Joginder Pal (supra) had been in relation to the same matter

concerning the PCS (Executive Branch) candidates and for the same

reasons, where segregation was found possible, the untainted candidates

were allowed to join their duties.

On the other hand, noticeable it is that in the case of Krishan



Yadav (supra), where the entire selection process of taxation Inspectors

was found vitiated by fraud, nepotism, favouritism and arbitrariness with

tampering of final record and other documents, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

observed that “fraud has reached to its crescendo”; and that such foul

deeds could less be perpetrated. In the given fact situation and after

finding systematic fraud, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court set aside the entire

selection process while observing as under:-

“19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. 20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalized for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place “fraud unravels everything”. To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors.”

In the case of O. Chakradhar (supra), again, when the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court found that mischief in conducting the selection was wide

spread and all-pervasive, affecting the entire result and it was difficult to

identify the persons unlawfully and wrongfully deprived of selection, the

whole selection process was cancelled. The Supreme Court held that the

selection could be cancelled without issuing individual show cause notice

to each person selected. In the given context, the Supreme Court said:

“8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefitted or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual



show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.”

At this juncture. It appears apposite to refer to the orders passed by

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Kaim‟s case that arose in the

circumstances that the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board

(VYAPAM) cancelled the results of the appellants of their professional

MBBS course, on the ground that they had secured the admission to the

course by resorting to unfair means during Pre-Medical Test. All the writ

petitions challenging such orders were dismissed by the High Court. The

orders of the High Court were affirmed by the Division Bench of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 15.02.2016 in the case reported as Nidhi Kaim

& Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. : (2016) 7 SCC 615.

However, there was divergence of views in the Division Bench as regards

the final relief in the matter and hence, the matter was placed before

Hon‟ble Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Hon‟ble Three-Judge

Bench ruled against granting of any relief even under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India to the persons who procured admission by dubious

methods and held that it would not be proper to legitimize such

admissions. In the course of the said decision7, the Hon‟ble Three-Judge

Bench of the Supreme Court indicated the primacy and supremacy of the

rule of law and of national character as under:-

“95. It is also not possible for us to accept the contention under consideration, and vehemently canvassed on behalf of the appellants (recorded in paragraph 93 above), for yet another reason. Because, it is not possible for us to accept either that the appellants were innocent, or that they were immature in understanding the consequences of their actions. Each one of the appellants was aware of the fact that their admission to the MBBS course would be determined on the basis of their performance in the Pre-Medical Test. Rather than appearing in the qualifying test on their own they chose to seek assistance of meritorious students to garner higher marks. We may not be completely wrong in our understanding if we conclude that the appellants were quite sure that they would not be able to gain admission to the MBBS course on their own merit. That is why they had to strategise their admission to the MBBS

7 Nidhi Kaim & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. : (2017) 4 SCC 1



course. We, therefore, reject the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the appellants were meritorious students, and as such, their admission to the MBBS course, deserved to be preserved. If this is where the truth lies (which we are sure, it does), namely, that the appellants were quite sure that they would not be able to gain admission to the MBBS course on their own merit, surely the appellants are not entitled to any equitable consideration. And, in that view of the matter, it would not be proper to extend to the appellants relief under Article 142 of the Constitution.

96. We wish to attempt to examine the matter from another perspective. Even a child, in the very first year of entering primary school, is aware of the consequences of copying during an examination. Teachers supervise examinations to make sure that students do not copy. Children caught copying are dealt with severely. Every child observes this process year after year. Can the appellants, who had completed school education, and are on the verge of entering a professional course, be treated as novices – unaware of the consequence of copying? In our considered view, certainly not. It is therefore not possible for us to extend any benefit to the appellants, either on account of their juvenility, or on account of their alleged lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions. In our considered view, the appellants had consciously sought the assistance of a syndicate engaged in manipulating admissions to medical institutions. They were beneficiaries of acts of deceit and deception. In the above view of the matter, the case of the appellants does not commend to us as a matter deserving of any sympathetic consideration. In our considered view, the admission of the appellants to the MBBS course cannot be legalised (or legitimised) in the name of justice.

******** ******** ********

99. Besides the consideration recorded by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we may confess, that we felt persuaded for taking the view that we have, for a very important reason – national character. There is a saying – when wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; but when character is lost, everything is lost. This is attributed to Billy Graham an American clergyman, born on 7-1-1918. One cannot be certain about the above attribution because the same lesson has been taught in India since time immemorial by parents and teachers. The issue in hand has an infinitely vast dimension. If we were to keep in mind immediate social or societal gains, the perspective of consideration would be different. The submission canvassed needs to be considered in the proper perspective. We shall venture to drive home the point by an illustration. We may well not have won our freedom, if freedom fighters had not languished in jails … and if valuable lives had not been sacrificed. Depending on the situation, even civil liberty or life itself, may be too trivial a sacrifice, when national interest is involved. It all depends on the desired goal. The preamble of the Indian Constitution rests on the foundation of governance on the touchstone of justice. The basic fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of the laws is extended to citizens and non-citizens alike through Article 14 of the Constitution on the fountainhead of fairness. The actions of the appellants are founded on unacceptable behaviour, and in complete breach of the Rule of Law. Their actions constitute acts of deceit invading into a righteous social order. National character, in our considered view, cannot be sacrificed for benefits – individual or societal. If we desire to build a nation on the touchstone of ethics and character and if our determined goal is to build a nation where only the Rule of Law prevails, then we cannot accept the claim of the appellants for the suggested societal gains. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, we have no difficulty whatsoever in concluding in favour of the Rule of Law. Such being the position, it is not possible for us to extend to the appellants any benefit under Article 142 of the Constitution.”



The ideals indicated and the principles propounded in the above,

with contextual variations, equally apply to the present case.

There is, yet another perspective. The whole matter relates to the

appointment of Assistant Teachers in the Lower Primary Schools. It had

been a selection process before the notification dated 23.08.2010 by the

National Council for Children Education [„NCTE‟] laying down the minimum

qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a

primary school in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23(1) of the

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; and no

contentions have been urged in relation to the basic legality of the process

as taken up under the notification dated 24.11.2008. In this view of the

matter, we have not entered into any other aspect but it appears necessary

to point out that the relevance and seriousness of such right to education

has again been highlighted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of U.P. and Another v. Anand Kumar Yadav and Ors: 2017 (8)

Scale 220 while approving the order of the Allahabad High Court, whereby

absorption of untrained persons (shiksha mitras) not carrying the requisite

qualifications was declared unconstitutional. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court

has reiterated the fundamentals that the right to free and compulsory

education is one of the significant right and only the qualified teachers

have to be appointed. In the said case, the persons affected were about

1.78 lakhs in number yet the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that there

cannot be any relaxation in the mandatory qualifications. Though the said

case does not directly apply to the present matter, but on the fundamentals

of quality education, we find no reason that any person appointed in a

thoroughly polluted process be at all allowed to continue. When the entire

process is flawed, it has to be annulled.



For what has been discussed herein above and in an overall

comprehension of the matter, when we have not an iota of doubt that the

selection process was hijacked by unscrupulous elements and was

polluted to the hilt, we find no reason to save even a part of it, so far the

said five Centres namely, Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and

Dadengre are concerned. Had it been a matter of certain illegality or

irregularity of lesser magnitude, we might have considered retention of

unblemished candidates in the service but any such exercise would be

only giving some credence to the process which we have found to be

rather fraudulent. This selection process in the said five Centres, if allowed

to remain even in part, would wreck and ruin the very basics of rule of law.

It is required to be annulled altogether but while safeguarding the interest

of genuine and bona fide candidates as also while safeguarding the

interest of education until concrete corrective measures are taken by the

Government. The only reliefs to the unblemished persons, which we deem

appropriate, are (i) to allow them to continue as stop-gap arrangement, if

they are in service; and (ii) to allow all of them, whether in service or not,

to participate in the fresh selection process without the requirement of

applying afresh and with age relaxation, if otherwise eligible.

THE COURSE TO BE ADOPTED

Having said as above and having clearly come to the conclusion that

the entire selection process stinks of highhandedness and contamination

and is required to be annulled while safeguarding the interests of genuine

candidates, we have pondered over the course to be adopted in these

matters.

It remains a fact that the initial challenge in the nine writ petitions

had only been of the selection process in relation to four Centres namely,

Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem and Tura. On the papers as supplied or as



seized, the fifth Centre Dadengre came to be examined by the CBI and

illegalities and criminalities were found galore in all these five Centres.

Moreover, as noticed above, it had been a selection process where the

public representatives boldly chose to interfere in the selection of

candidate/candidates by addressing communications, as if making

recommendation in a public selection process was a matter of right. It is,

therefore, absolutely unsafe to assume that there were no cases of

manipulation in other Centres. It would be too simple, rather inappropriate,

to assume that the mode and methodology of total defiance of law

remained confined only to these five Centres. Hence, an appropriate

inquiry in relation to the other Centres is also requisite, irrespective of the

fact that the appointments are continuing for last about 7 years. Any

passage of time cannot provide legitimacy to a public employment, if

obtained by dubious methods and in defiance of fair play.

As noticed, the inquiry for the five Centres was carried out by CBI.

The Division Bench, however, referred the matter to the Committee in the

Government but with directions to take guidance from CBI report too; and

ultimately, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed this Court to re-examine

the matter with reference to the reports of CBI and HLSC both. The result

of such examination has been indicated hereinabove. Having regard to the

circumstances noticed in detail hereinabove, we are of the considered view

that it would be in the interest of justice if the same course, that has got

applied to the aforesaid five Centres, is applied in relation to the remaining

Centres too.

For applying such a course for the remaining Centres, the first

requirement would be of an inquiry by the CBI. Though in the given set of

facts and circumstances, we need not elaborate on the justification for

assigning the inquiry for other Centres to CBI as the previous report by the



CBI in relation to the same process has been taken into consideration as

per the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court; and such report by CBI has,

in fact, assisted this Court in arriving at the decision regarding the said five

Centres. Yet, for the reason that the investigation of the pending FIR is

also proposed to be transferred to CBI, we deem it just and proper to refer

to the principles expounded by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in regard to

assigning of inquiry and/or investigation to CBI.

In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors v. Committee for

Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors: (2010) 3 SCC

571, the issue referred to the Constitution Bench was as to whether the

High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, could direct the CBI established under the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 to investigate a cognizable

offence, which was alleged to have taken place within the territorial

jurisdiction of the State, without the consent of the concerned State

Government? The incident involved in the matter related to offences

pertaining to Sections 364/302/201 IPC, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act,

1959, and Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884. There had been

questions raised on the fairness of the inquiry of State Police and, having

regard to the circumstances, the High Court of Calcutta, while dealing with

the incident in question in a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, considered it appropriate to handover the

investigation to CBI. On the principal question referred for determination,

the Hon‟ble Constitutional Bench ultimately came to the conclusion that

such directions for investigation by CBI on a cognizable offence in the

State without the consent of the State Government neither impinged upon

the federal structure nor violated the distribution of power. The Constitution

Bench also defined and delineated on the width, amplitude as also



limitation of the writ jurisdiction while issuing a direction for CBI

investigation in the following:-

“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”

The Hon‟ble Constitution Bench further referred to the decision in

Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya:

(2002) 5 SCC 521 with approval, while observing as under:-

71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.”

In the case of Sahngoo Ram Arya (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court cautioned against an order for investigation by CBI in a routine

manner while emphasizing that direction for an inquiry by CBI could only

be issued if the Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a

conclusion that such material indeed disclosed a prima facie case calling

for investigation by CBI or similar agency. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court

said,-

“6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by the Police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for


https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/


an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of „ifs‟ and „buts‟ and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Common Cause.”

In the case of Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors :

(2009) 1 SCC 441, even at the time when the question stood referred to

the Larger Bench in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic

Rights (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court pointed out that the standing

law recognized such power with the High Court and found the directions

for investigation by CBI justified when the matter involved serious

allegations against a Minister of the State Government and officers while

observing, inter alia as under:-

“28. An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation. When serious allegations were made against a former Minister of the State, save and except the cases of political revenge amounting to malice, it is for the State to entrust one or the other agency for the purpose of investigating into the matter. The State for achieving the said object at any point of time may consider handing over of investigation to any other agency including a Central agency which has acquired specialisation in such cases. *** *** *** 36. In an ordinary case, we might have accepted the submission of Mr Rao that the High Court should not direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate into a particular offence. The offence, however, is not ordinary in nature. It involved investigation into the allegations of commission of fraud in a systematic manner. It had a wide ramification as a former Minister of the State is said to be involved.”

The present one being also a matter of involvement of the high

ranking public representatives and of enormous magnitude of its kind; and

where a part of the selection process in relation to five Centres has already

been found vitiated with excessive manipulations, we are clearly of the



view that in the first place the inquiry in relation to the remaining Centres

ought to be carried out by CBI.

We may observe that in the case of Meghalaya Public Service

Commission v. Shri Millon Ch. Momin, WA No. 67 of 2016 decided on

26.10.2016, this Court has indicated that direction for CBI inquiry cannot

be made only on the basis of doubts and without the Court coming to the

conclusion that the material on record discloses prima facie case for such

an inquiry. However, it was observed that,-

“In the process of adjudication, the Court is required to find the answers to the contentious issues on the basis of material on record and the law applicable thereto. Of course, for the purpose of certain scientific investigation or alike matters, the Court do take the opinion of the experts but and however, even such an opinion remains merely an opinion and ultimately, the view has to be taken by the Court after its own appreciation of evidence. Of course, after a view is taken by the Court and a finding is reached (which may be a prima facie finding or a concluded finding) and therein, the Court finds something calling for an enquiry by an independent authority/agency, the matter could, of course, be handed over to such an authority/agency but not before.”

In the present case, the learned Single Judge had, in the earlier

round, reached to prima facie findings and spelt out cogent reasons for

handing over the matter for inquiry by CBI. After having thoroughly

examined the matter now in this round and having reached to the finding

that there had been large scale manipulations in the selection process, we

have no doubt that the matter requires further inquiry by CBI.

Having regard to the circumstances, we are also of the view that

after the CBI has carried out the inquiry in relation to the remaining

Centres, the report ought to be submitted to the State Government, who

shall act on the same after carrying out such further inquiry as may be

considered requisite.

For the purpose of such further inquiry by the State Government we

are now not inclined to entrust the matter to the HLSC that had earlier

carried out the inquiry with soft-paddling and left the crux of the matter

unattended. However, and even when not entrusting the matter to the



HLSC, we see no reason not to rely on the impartiality and objectivity of

the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya. Therefore, we are

inclined to order constitution of a fresh Scrutiny Committee under the

chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya

while entrusting the learned Chief Secretary with the task of appointing two

more members of impeccable integrity in the Committee: one being an

officer of State Civil Services and another being an independent member

from any Central or State Educational Institution or University. The

Committee so constituted by the Chief Secretary shall examine the report

of the CBI and shall carry out further inquiry as considered necessary and

submit its report to the State Government, who shall be acting on the same

in accordance with law. In this regard, we consider it appropriate to provide

that if in regard to any Centre, no interference of any third party to the

recruitment process is found and if the irregularities are not of massive

scale, only the tainted candidates, if any, may be dealt with while not

disturbing the other candidates. However, if selection process in any

Centre is found unfair with interference of public representatives or any

other third person and/or the illegalities are of massive level, it would be

expected of the Government to take appropriate decision for annulment of

such a selection process

One aspect of the matter yet remains to be dealt with; and that

relates to the candidates who have been found tainted/blemished in the

reports of CBI and HLSC. Although, prima facie, the reports regarding

manipulations and tampering of marks appear to be in accord with the

facts manifest on record, yet we do not discard altogether the submission

on behalf of such candidates that their branding as tainted is that of

stigma. Having regard to the circumstances, we are inclined to give them

yet another chance to represent, but with rigorous conditions. Such



rigorous conditions are required to be put for the reason that in the name

of representation and an opportunity of hearing, none of such candidates is

entitled to waste the public time and to seek a hearing only for the sake of

it.

Hence, in the interest of justice, the persons who have been found

tainted are given liberty to make a representation to the said Scrutiny

Committee to be constituted by the Chief Secretary but with a note of

caution that if any such representation is rejected by the Committee, the

candidate concerned shall be subjected to payment of penalty in the sum

of Rs.50,000/-; and shall thereafter stand permanently debarred from

seeking any Government employment.

Investigation to be transferred to CBI

As held hereinabove, in this matter involving mass manipulations

and interference, we have not an iota of doubt that the entire selection

process, at least for the five referred Centres, is polluted beyond repair and

is required to be annulled. At the same time, it cannot be assumed that the

process in relation to the other Centres had gone unaffected and hence,

we are entrusting the inquiry in relation to such other Centres to CBI.

Apart from the above, we are clearly of the view that this is a matter

that requires thorough and deep investigation by an independent agency.

As noticed, in this matter, an FIR has already been lodged wherein other

complaints have also been clubbed; and investigation remains pending.

Hereinbefore, we have referred to the principles expounded by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court for assigning investigation/ inquiry in a given case to CBI in

substitution of the State Investigating Agency. Applying the said principles

to the fact situation of the present case, we are clearly of the view that the

State Police would not be the proper agency to be entrusted with the

investigation; and for the requisite investigation and for bringing to book all



the persons responsible in this scam, it is rather imperative that

investigation in the FIR relating to this matter [presently Laitumukhrah

P.S.Case No.62(7) of 2011] be carried out by the CBI.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

Accordingly and in view of the above:

1. (a) The whole of selection process under the advertisement dated

10.12.2008, as issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools in pursuance of

Notification dated 24.11.2008, is held vitiated in relation to Shillong Sadar,

Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadengre Centres; and is annulled subject to

the proviso that only the candidates who have been treated as

untainted/unblemished both in the reports of CBI and HLSC and are in

service, may be allowed to continue as stop-gap arrangement until fresh

selection takes place.

(b) The prayer of other untainted/unblemished candidates of the said

five Centres for induction in service stands rejected.

(c) However, all the untainted/unblemished candidates of the said

five Centres, whether in service or not, shall be allowed to participate in the

fresh selection process, if otherwise eligible in accordance with the

presently applicable Rules/Guidelines, without necessity of their applying

afresh. In this regard it is also provided that none of such

untainted/unblemished candidates shall be treated as age-barred if he/she

was within the age prescribed by the notification dated 24.11.2008.

(d) None of the candidates who has been found tainted/blemished,

whether in the report of CBI or in the report of HLSC or both as also none

of the candidates who had been recommended by the public

representative shall be taken or retained in service even in stop-gap

arrangement and the service of every such candidate, who is yet



continuing, whether by way of regular appointment or in ad hoc

arrangement, shall stand terminated with immediate effect.

2. For the candidates who have been found tainted/blemished in the

CBI report and/or HLSC report for Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura

and Dadenggre, it is provided that any such candidate, if so desires, may

make a representation, within 30 days from today, to the Chief Secretary to

the Government of Meghalaya for consideration as untainted candidate.

The Chief Secretary shall get such representation/s examined by a three-

member Committee, comprising of himself; and one member from the

State Civil Services having unblemished service record and of impeccable

integrity; and one independent member from any Central or State

Educational Institution or University. The said Committee shall take

decision on such representation/s within 60 days of making; and if the

Committee would accept the representation and treat the candidate as

untainted, he/she shall be entitled to the right of participation in the fresh

selection process at par with other untainted candidates. It is, however,

made clear that if the Committee would confirm the tainted character of

any such candidate, he/she shall stand permanently debarred from

seeking any Government employment and shall also be liable for penalty

quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) that shall be

deposited in the State Disaster Management Fund.

3. So far the Centres other than Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura

and Dadengre are concerned, it is directed that:

(a) CBI shall carry out similar nature inquiry, as carried out earlier in

pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2011 and shall similarly segregate the

tainted and untainted candidates and submit its report to the Chief

Secretary within six months from today. For this purpose, the State



Government shall, within two weeks from today, hand over the entire

record relating to all the Centres to the CBI without fail.

(b) As soon as the report is submitted by the CBI, it shall be required

of the Chief Secretary to act on such report of CBI through the same

Committee as ordered hereinabove. In this regard, it is provided that:

i) The said Committee headed by the Chief Secretary shall examine

the report of CBI and shall carry out such further inquiry as deemed fit and

necessary but shall make final recommendation to the State Government

within 3 months of receipt of the report from CBI.

ii) If large scale manipulations and/or interference of public

representative or any other person are found, the Committee may

recommend scrapping of whole of the selection process of that Centre too;

and the State Government shall act accordingly. In such an eventuality, the

directions in the foregoing paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply.

iii) If no illegalities and manipulations are found in any Centre or if

the extent of irregularities in any particular Centre are not of higher

magnitude and no case of interference by any public representative or any

other person is found, the selection process of such Centre may be

approved by the Committee subject to appropriate orders relating to the

tainted or blameworthy candidate, if any; and the State Government shall

act accordingly.

4 (a) Laitumukhrah P.S.Case No.62(7) of 2011 stands withdrawn from the

State Police and stands transferred to the CBI for appropriate investigation

and submission of its result within six months from today.

(b) The Case Diary of Laitumukhrah P.S.Case No.62(7) of 2011 as

submitted by the State Government, shall be handed over to the learned

counsel for CBI for onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police,

CBI, Shillong.



(c). The other records of CBI pertaining to the inquiry proceedings in

PE2(A)/2011-SHG shall also be handed over to the learned counsel for

CBI for onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong.

5. The disciplinary proceedings against the then Director, Elementary

and Mass Education shall continue and the case file of disciplinary

proceedings be returned to the learned Advocate General for appropriate

transmission. The other certified copies and the documents in relation to

the proceedings of the HLSC as also appointment orders be handed over

to the learned Advocate General.

6. All the appeals and writ petition in this group stand disposed of

accordingly with no order as to costs.

Before parting, we put on record profound appreciation that,

irrespective of the overtones of this matter, the learned counsel for the

respective parties only argued on the relevant issues in a neat and orderly

manner; and rendered invaluable assistance to the Court in sifting through

the volumes of records.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Sylvana


Bar & Bench ()

Documents

Transcript of Bar & Bench ()