Meghalaya High Court
Shri Lotstar N Arengh And Ors vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 18 June, 2014
Author: T Nandakumar Singh
Bench: T Nandakumar Singh
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
W.P.(C) No.288/2013
1. Shri. Lotstar N Arengh
2. Smti. Jenny Mary S. Marak
3. Smti. Sengmitchi M. Momin
4. Shri. Didymush Momin
5. Shri. Tengsrang M Marak
6. Shri. Prewin Momin
7. Shri. Tito Marak
8. Shri. Sengnang Momin
9. Shri. Sengrik Momin
10. Smti. Najia Marak
11. Shri. Bimbu Momin
12. Smti. Mihillash Momin
13. Smti. Hema Trudy Marak
14. Smti. Jobaity K. Marak
15. Smti. Dilchie M. Sangma
16. Smti. Noterak Marak
17. Smti. Nesina Sangma
18. Smti. Chanurani N. Marak
19. Smti. Zarine Sangma
20. Shri. Brenath Sangma
21. Smti. Sengmilla N. Sangma
22. Smti. Lipstar Sangma
23. Smti. Bomica R. Sangma
24. Shri. Debatus R. Sangma
25. Smti. Olga T. Sangma
26. Smti. Waljiny K. Sangma
27. Shri. Manrik Marak
28. Shri. Binosh G. Momin
29. Shri. Mansrang Momin
30. Smti. Theresa G. Momin
31. Smti. Bensitha Momin
32. Shri. Silnang Marak
33. Smti. Ruthina D. Marak
Page 1 of 35
34. Shri. Matgrik Marak
35. Smti. Sengme S. Sangma
36. Smti. Tiurina S. Marak
37. Smti. Lucie T. Sangma
38. Shri. Archie S. Marak
39. Shri. Belshazal D. Marak
40. Smti. Spraylina T. Sangma
41. Smti. Ritha N. Sangma
42. Smti. Geachi Ch. Marak
43. Smti. Marconina T. Sangma
44. Smti. Scholastica A. Sangma
45. Smti. Bartholomy G. Momin
46. Smti. Bobitha R. Sangma
47. Smti. Lulitha A. Sangma
48. Shri. Grinbirth R. Marak
49. Smti. Marbaline B. Marak
50. Shri. Merrill D. Marak
51. Shri. Alfrinzer Sangma
52. Shri. Stanley Davis B. Marak
53. Smti. Perina Sangma
All of them are the Resident of
Williamnagar/Asiragre
P.O. & P.S. :- Williamnagar
East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. ::::Petitioners
-Vrs-
1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the
Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya,
Shillong.
2. The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of
Meghalaya, Personnel and Administrative
Reform (B) Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of
Meghalaya, Personnel and Administrative
Reform (B) Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. The Special Secretary to the Govt. of
Meghalaya, Personnel and Administrative
Reform (B) Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.
5. The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman,
District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills
District, Williamnagar.
Page 2 of 35
6. The District Selection Committee,
represented by the Member Secretary,
District Selection Committee, Williamnagar.
7. The Member Secretary, District Selection
Committee, East Garo Hills District,
Williamnagar, Meghalaya.
8. Shri. Marsing G. Momin,
S/o:- Shri. Bering R. Marak,
R/o:- Dambo Chirimit
P.O.:- Rongjeng.
9. Shri. Pardinend Marak,
S/o:- Shri. O.D.Sangma
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O:- Williamnagar
10. Shri. Dominic N. Arengh
S/o:- Shri. Perensing Sangma
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O:- Williamnagar
11. Smti. Lnazebi Momin
D/o:- Late Lonard D. Shira
R/o:- Housing Complex
P.O.:- Williamnagar
12. Smti. Nightingle P. Marak
D/o:- (L) Benting J. Sangma
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O:- Williamnagar
13. Shri. Andrew Nicolaus Shira
S/o:- Shri. Merciful Marak
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O.:- Williamnagar
14. Shri. Namchu Marak
S/o:- Shri. Dotho Sangma
R/o:- Balsigittim
P.O.:- Williamnagar
15. Smti. Munchibell G. Momin
D/o:- Shri. Hallendra M. Sangma
R/o:- Balsigittim
P.O.:- Williamnagar
16. Smti. Dombe N. Sangma
D/o:- (L) Hitler G. Momin
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O.:- Williamnagar
17. Smti. Felicia M. Marak
D/o:- Shri. Jobstone G. Momin
Page 3 of 35
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O.:- Williamnagar
18. Dilbana Sangma
R/o:- Nokgil Awe
P.O.:- Williamnagar
19. Shri. Dalnang R. Sangma
R/o:- Samgonggre
P.O.:- Williamnagar
20. Shri. Preninath N. Sangma
R/o:- Warimagre
P.O.:- Williamnagar
21. Shri. Birhstyn Ch. Marak
R/o:- Kusimkolgre, P.O.:- Williamnagar
East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya
22. Shri. Decent N. Arengh
R/o:- Warimagre, P.O.:- Williamnagar
23. Smti. Elzana Dikanchi W. Momin
R/o:- Dainadubi
P.O.:- Williamnagar
(Serial Number 8 to 23 are all from East Garo
Hills District, Meghalaya). :::: Respondents
For the petitioners : Mr. AH Hazarika, Adv For the respondents : Mr. S Sen Gupta, GA
Mr. HL Shangreiso, Adv.for respdt.No.8-23 W.P.(C) No.268/2013
1. Shri. Shr. Dalnang R. Sangma Aged about ......years, R/o Samgonggre, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Preninath N. Sangma R/o Warimagre, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Birthstyn Ch. Marak R/o Kusimkolgre, P.O. Williamnagar, Page 4 of 35 East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. Shri. Decem N. Arengh R/o Warimagre, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. :::: Writ Petitioners
-Vrs-
1. The state of Meghalaya, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Shillong, Meghalaya.
2. The Chairman, District Selection Committee.
East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya.
3. The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. HL Shangreiso, Adv For the respondents : Mr. H Kharmih, GA W.P.(C) No.269/2013 Smti. Elzana Dikanchi W. Momin Aged about 28 years, R/o Dainadubi, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. :::: Writ Petitioner
-Vrs-
1. The state of Meghalaya, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Shillong, Meghalaya.
2. The Chairman, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya.
3. The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, Page 5 of 35 East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. HL Shangreiso, Adv For the respondents : Mr. H Kharmih, GA W.P.(C) No.270/2013
1. Shri. Marsing G. Momin S/o Shri. Bering R. Marak, R/o Dambo Chirimit, P.O. Rongjeng, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. Shri. Pardinend Marak, S/o Shri. O.D. Sangma, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Dominic N. Arengh, S/o Shri. Peronsing Sangma, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. Smti. Elnazebi Momin, D/o Late Lonard D . Shira, R/o Housing Complex, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. Smti. Nightangle P. Marak, D/o late Benting J. Sangma, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
6. Shri. Andrew Nicolaaus Shira, S/o Shri. Merciful Marak, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
Page 6 of 35
7. Shri. Namchu Marak, S/o Shri. Dotho Sangma, R/o Balsrigittim, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
8. Smti. Munchibell G. Momin, D/o Shri. Hallendra M. Sangma, R/o Balsrigittim, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
9. Smti. Dombe N. Sangma, D/o late Hitler G. Momin, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
10. Smti. Felicia M. Marak, D/o Shri. Jobstone G. Momin, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
11. Dilbanan Sangma, R/o Nokgil Awe, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. :::: Writ Petitioner
-Vrs-
1. The State of Meghalaya, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. The Chairman, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya.
3. The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar, Meghalaya.
4. Shri. Tito Sangma, R/o Kusimkolgre, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. Shri. Prewind Momin, C/O Office of the District Medical & Health Officer, P.O. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents Page 7 of 35 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the petitioners : Mr. HL Shangreiso, Adv For the respondents : Mr. H Kharmih, GA Date of hearing : 30.05.2014 Date of Judgment : 18.06.2014 JUDGMENT AND ORDER These four writ petitions involving the same question of facts and law relating with the recruitment test or written test for the posts advertised in the advertisement dated 10.02.2012 issued by the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar were taken up for joint hearing for disposal by a common judgment and order. For writing the common judgment and order WP(C)No.288 of 2013 is taken up as a leading case so as to avoid repetition of facts and law. WP(C)No.288/2013
2. The writ petitioners of WP(C)No.288/2013, after trying their luck by appearing in the written test examination for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant (for short 'LDA') on 22.09.2012 and found not successful in the written test examination, filed the present writ petition only in the month of October, 2013 challenging the list of the successful candidates of the written test examination dated 19.06.2013 by alleging serious allegations against the authority, who conducted the written test examination. In the writ petition, no satisfactory explanation had been mentioned as to why they had been waiting for more than one year for filing the present writ petition alleging serious allegations against the authority, who conducted the said written test examination i.e. on 22.09.2012. Page 8 of 35
3. Heard Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No.1-7. Also heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondents No.8-23 in WP(C)No.288/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C)No.268/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C)No.269/2013. Heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H Kharmih, learned GA appearing for the respondents in WP(C)No.270/2013.
4. Factual Background:- The Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar issued an advertisement dated Williamnagar 10.02.2012 for appointment to the posts of (i) Lady Supervisor (ii) L.D. Assistant (iii) Fishery Demonstrator (iv) Sectional Assistant (v) Driver (vi) Soil & Water Conservation Field Worker (vii) Duftry
(viii) Plumber (ix) Chowkidar (x) Kalasi and (xi) Handyman. In the said advertisement dated 10.02.2012, numbers of posts advertised are not mentioned but only the words "few posts" are mentioned as number of posts advertised. For easy reference, the said advertisement dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) is reproduced below:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST GARO HILLS DISTRICT, WILLIAMNAGAR.
No.EGH/DSC/69/99/216 Dated Williamnagar 10th February, 2012.
ADVERTISEMENT An application in standard form are invited from the permanent residents of Meghalaya for the under-mentioned Page 9 of 35 posts. The post carry the scale of pay besides usual allowances as admissible under the rules issued by the Govt. from time to time.
Application should be submitted in standard form of application prescribed in Part-IX of the Gazette of Meghalaya along with attested copies of certificates relating to age, qualification, caste citizenship, and 3(three) copies of attested passport size photographs so as to reach the undersigned on or before 12th March, 2012.
Candidate already in Govt. Service/Other Statutory Bodies should apply directly to the undersigned with a copy of "No objection Certificate" from their Employer/Authority.
AGE LIMIT.
Candidate must not be less than 18 (eighteen) years of age and not more than 27 (twenty seven) years of age as on 1st January 2012. The age is relaxable up to 5 (five) years for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste candidate. There will be no age bar for those already in Meghalaya Govt. services provided they entered service within the prescribed age limit.
Candidates applying for the under mentioned posts have to take Written Test/Viva Voce. A panel of names will be drawn up for appointment in order of merit. Such panel will be subjected to the Job Reservation Policy of Govt. of Meghalaya and will be valid for 1(one) year.
APPLICATION FEE.
Applications should be accompanied by I.P.O. of Rs.10/- (Rs5/- for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste and Ex-Servicemen) and an Examination Fees of Rs.20/- (Rs.10/- for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste and Ex-Servicemen) and to be deposited to the Govt. accounts of the Secretary, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar.
No other mode of payment will be accepted. Fees are not refundable.
PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION OF I.P.O.
1. Up-to-date I.P.O. only will be accepted (from the date of advertisement).
2. Payment Office should be written as at Williamnagar Post Office only.
3. No overwriting, correction, mutilated, torn etc. I.P.O. will be accepted.
4. I.P.O. should be completely filled up (no column to be left blank).Page 10 of 35
5. The applicant should not put his/her signature on the back side of I.P.O. Application found incomplete/defective in any manner or received after the last date will be summarily rejected.
Canvassing directly or indirectly in any form will disqualify the candidate.
The candidates are to submit self addressed envelope (size 9" X 4") with adequate postal stamps.
NAME OF POSTS SCALE OF PAY EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATION
1. 1 Post of Lady Supervisor 11,300/- to 22,000 PM Graduate
2. Few Posts of L.D.Assistant 9,200/- to 18,020 PM SSLC/PU Passed
Diploma in Computer
3. 1 Post of Fishery 8,300/- to 16,270/- PM SSLC/P.U. Passed
Demonstrator
4. Few Posts of Sectional 8,300/- to 16,270/- PM SSLC/P.U. Passed
Assistant
5. Few post of Driver 7,700/- to 15,020/- PM Class VIII Passed
Valid Driving License
6. Few Posts Soil & Water 7,000/- to 13,840/- PM SSLC Passed
Conservation Field Worker
7. Few Post of Duftry 7,100/- to 13,840/- PM SSLC
Passed/Class VIII
Passed
8. 1 Post of Plumber 6,500/- to 12,700/- PM Class VIII Passed
9. Few Posts of Chowkidar 6,500/- to 12,700/- PM Class VIII Passed
10.1 Post of Kalasi 6,500/- to 12,700/- PM Class VIII Passed
11. Few Post of Handyman 6,500/- to 12,700/- PM Class VIII passed
Member Secretary,
District Selection Committee,
East Garo Hills, Williamnagar."
5. In response to the said advertisement dated 10.02.2012, a large number of candidates including the writ petitioners had applied for the posts of LDA, Lady Supervisor and Sectional Assistant. The District Selection Committee (for short 'DSC'), Williamnagar issued call letters to all the candidates calling upon them to appear before the written test examination Page 11 of 35 on 22.09.2012 at Rongrenggre Govt. Higher Secondary School and Williamnagar Govt. College, Williamnagar. The petitioners and others had appeared in the written test examination for the posts of LDA, Lady Supervisor and Sectional Assistant. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners and others did not protest or complain before appearing the written test examination on 22.09.2012 and were fully satisfied with the manner the authorities conducted the written test examination on 22.09.2012 and after appearing the written test examination, the petitioners and other had been waiting eagerly for the result of the written test examination about 10 (ten) months without making any complaint. The result of the written test examination for the post of LDA was published on 19.06.2013 and asked the successful candidates to appear for personal interview on 06.07.2013 at 10:00 AM in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. It was also notified in the said Notification dated 19.06.2013 that intimation letters are being dispatched to the selected candidates and the candidates should come with original documents and no TA/DA will be paid to the candidates appearing for the interview. For easy reference, the said Notification dated 19.06.2013 (Annexure-V to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST GARO HILLS DISTRICT, WILLIAMNAGAR.
No.EGH/DSC.78/PT/2013-14/1 Dated Williamnagar 19th June, 2013.
NOTIFICATION In continuation to this Office Advertisement No.EGH/DSC/69/99/216, dated Williamnagar the 10th February 2012 relating to the result of the Written Examination for the post of L.D. Assistant on 22 September, 2012, the candidates bearing the following Roll Numbers are also declared to have qualified to appear for the personal interview. (In order of Roll Numbers).Page 12 of 35
Roll Numbers:
42, 48, 57, 58, 68, 134, 136, 137, 159, 170, 171, 206, 232, 250, 277, 325, 367, 395, 408, 425, 426, 506, 590, 661, 664, 743, 745, 746, 753, 767, 769, 772, 781, 791, 902, 923, 957, 970, 975 The Personal Interview will be held on 6th July, 2013 at 10:00 AM in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. Intimation letters are being dispatched to the candidates concerned.
Note: The candidates must bring their original documents. No TA/DA will be paid to the candidates appearing for the interview.
Chairman, District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar."
6. After the names of the petitioners were not included in the list of the successful candidates in the written test examination published in the said Notification dated 19.06.2013, the petitioners started alleging that most of the successful candidates are the relatives of the employees working in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Williamnagar and under District Selection Branches, Williamnagar and there are strong suspicions and doubts arise in the minds of the petitioners that there must be nepotism, favoritism, manipulation and discrimination in selecting the candidates and more over, most of the invigilators and answer scripts evaluators and examiners are Grade-IV employees of the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Williamnagar. It is also alleged that the petitioners came to know from the reliable source that there was leakage of question papers. Only after the petitioners were not successful in the written test examination, they started having strong suspicions and doubts that there must be nepotism, favoritism, manipulation and discrimination in selecting the candidates. The petitioners who were not successful in the written test examination filed an application dated 25.06.2013 under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information and related documents Page 13 of 35 such as: (i) Attendance sheets of the candidates (ii) copy of the order for appointment of Invigilators and Answer Scripts Examiners (iii) copies of the Answer Script of candidates (iv) original marks obtained by the candidates duly signed by the DSC Members (v) result sheets and constitution of DSC Members (vi) copy of consolidated statement of result and (vii) Resolution adopted by DSC Members. In response to the said application dated 25.06.2013, the Deputy Commissioner under his letter dated 12.07.2013 informed the petitioners and others that he has signed the result and understood that some relatives of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's Office were qualified for the interview. Immediately, he called for the answer scripts of such candidates and checked them thoroughly and he was totally satisfied that there was no manipulation of answer scripts of those candidates. The selection of relatives of some of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's Office is purely a coincidence. The Deputy Commissioner further stated in his letter dated 12.07.2013 that short listing was done purely based on merit and there were 13 vacancies for the post of LDA and 39 candidates at the ratio of 1:3 were selected in the written test examination and for three vacancies in the post of Sectional Assistant, 15 candidates were selected in the written test examination at the ratio of 1:5 and for one vacancy in the post of Lady Supervisor, 5 candidates were selected in the written test examination at the ratio of 1:5.
7. The Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 12.07.2013 further stated that the allegations made by the petitioners against the authorities are on surmises and conjectures. The Deputy Commissioner further stated in his letter dated 12.07.2013 that he was ready to order for Magisterial Enquiry into the alleged leakage of question papers and also for transparency and integrity, the writ petitioners may inspect the answer scripts of the alleged favourites, relatives and financial supporters of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's Office. It would be more beneficial to reproduce the said Page 14 of 35 letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition) hereunder:-
"GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER::EAST GARO HILLS DISTRICT WILLIAMNAGAR No.EGH/DSC-8/MISC/2013/2339-53 Dt. Williamnagar, 12th July, 2013.
From: Deputy Commissioner,
East Garo Hills,
Williamnagar.
To,
1.Representatives of the Candidates Petitioners of Williamnagar.
2. (i) Shri. P.N. Marak, Secretary AIGU, Williamnagar Unit
(ii) Shri. H.D. Sangma, President, AIGU, Williamnagar Unit Sub: Allegations against the DSC-matter regarding thereof.
Ref: 1. The letter No. nil Dated 1st July 2013 from representatives of candidates.
2. The letter No. nil Dated 9th July, 2013 from AIGU, Williamnagar Unit.
1. With reference to the subject cited above and letters referred above I am to inform you that you have raised very serious allegations against the District Selection Committee, East Garo Hills including the relatives of the staff of the office of Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills. The allegations have the potential to damage the image of DSC, Williamnagar as well as the staff of this office. I wish you had checked your facts before making such serious allegations.
2. After going through your petition, the undersigned has checked the results and understood that some of the relatives of the staff of Deputy Commissioners' office are qualified for the Interview. Immediately I called for the Answer scripts of such candidates and checked them thoroughly. I am totally satisfied that there is no manipulation of answer scripts of these candidates. The selection of relative of some of the staff of the DC office is purely a coincidence.
3. With regard to your concern of passing few candidates amongst thousands of candidates shows your poor Page 15 of 35 understanding of the Selection Procedure. In the selection procedure there is no pass or fail. Depending on vacancy we shortlist the candidates for Interview. The shortlisting is done purely based on merit. I am to clarify to you that there are 13 vacancies for the post of LDA and hence we short listed 39 candidates at the ratio of 1:3; there are 3 vacancies for the post of Sectional Assistant and hence we shortlisted 15 candidates at the ratio of 1:5; And there is 1 vacancy for the post of Lady Supervisor and hence we shortlisted 5 candidates at the ratio of 1:5. The ratio is selected depending on the trend in difference of marks from one candidate to another candidate.
4. With regard to your concern of leakage of question papers, I would like to clarify that the written test was conducted in the month of September, 2012 and raising such allegation after 9 months is totally not acceptable. If you had known such information, you should have brought to knowledge of this office. Hiding the knowledge of a crime may also be treated a crime. Raising such serious allegations based on hearsay is not taken lightly. But still, I am ready to order for magisterial enquiry into the alleged leakage of question papers if you can share some evidence with the undersigned.
5. Through RTI application you asked for the answer scripts all the candidates, which was refused as third party information cannot be shared under RTI. But considering the seriousness of your allegations that the answer scripts of relatives of the staff of this office are tampered, I would like to give you an opportunity to prove your allegations.
6. In order to prove our commitment towards transparency and Integrity, we would like to take that extraordinary step of placing the answer scripts of the alleged favourites, relatives and financial supporters of this office staff for your inspection.
7. You are requested to come for the inspection on or before 19.07.2013. You may wish to come on your own or in group of interested people.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Shri.V.K. Mantri, IAS) Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar."
8. The Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar ordered a magisterial enquiry into the alleged leakage of question papers Page 16 of 35 and favoritism said to have been meted out by the authorities to the selected candidates. Under an order No.EGH/CON.57/2010/127-A dated Williamnagar 19.07.2013, one Shri. S.B. Marak, MCS, Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar had been appointed for conducting the magisterial enquiry. The said Magistrate asked the writ petitioners and others to come forward for their statements in the enquiry but only few candidates i.e. 6 candidates including two petitioners, namely Shri. Didymush Momin (petitioner No.4) and Shri.Prewin Momin (petitioner No.6) had come forward to give their statements in the enquiry and accordingly, their statements had been recorded. The petitioners who made serious allegations of leakage of question papers and selection of relatives of the staff of the office of the Deputy Commissioner by means of favoritism and nepotism did not come forward to give their statements in the magisterial enquiry except the two petitioners. What the petitioners No.4 & 6 had stated in the magisterial enquiry was that since they have done quite well, they expected to get through and since they were not selected, they are very doubtful in conducting the written test examination. The statements of the petitioners No.4 & 5 before the magisterial enquiry read as follows:-
"EXTRACT COPY OF STATEMENT Statement of Didymush Momin, DEO, SSA (writ petitioner No.4) Recorded in connection under enquiry No.EGH/CON.57/2010/127-A, dated Williamnagar, the 19th July, 2013 On SA:
I am Shri.Didymush Momin, aged 32 years. Presently I am working as DEO, SSA for over 2 years. I have been appearing in DSC interviews several times like Gram Sevak, LDA, SA. This was my last attempt. On 24th September, 2012, one resource person Shri. Ropstar Sangma (under SSA) around 11-12 o'clock during daytime, came to our SSA office for Xeroxing the question papers of LDA Examination. During Page 17 of 35 the course of conversation, however, Shri. Marsing G. Momin, DEO, SSA told us that printing was done one day ahead of exam i.e. 21st September, 2012 - in SSA office. I got it confirmed from Shri. Jomen, Peon of SSA. He told me that printing was done but confidentially with Dr. Challang and he was also present. No one was allowed to enter or move out. I am doubtful in this regard and since I had fared well, I expected myself to get through. Since, all my colleagues got through the exam, I am left alone, I suspect they must have also got the question paper.
Sd/-
Didymush G. Momin DEO, SSA.
R.O.& A.C. Sd/-
S.B. Marak, MCS Addl. Deputy Commissioner EXTRACT COPY OF STATEMENT Statement of Shri. Prewin Momin (writ petitioner No.6), IV Grade (permanent employee)-Medical Deptt. (DM&HO) Williamnagar On SA:
I am Shri.Prewin Momin, aged 30 years, S/o Lt. Merensing A. Sangma of Kusimkolgre P.O. & P.S. Williamnagar. I have attempted DSC exams several times (LDA, Gram Sevak, Fishery Demonstrator since 2005). However, I got the job only in the year 2008 in IV Grade. I am the permanent employee of DM&HO, Williamnagar. During the course of conversation, during discussion, Shri.P.G. Momin, Baiza, told us that there could also be a possibility of getting the question paper reprinted from the resograph if the memory in the resograph is not deleted. This has given an air of doubt to all of us and it could be also possible that 7 of the SSA DEOs have got through the written exam.
Sd/-
Prewin Momin Kusimkol, Williamnagar R.O.& A.C. Sd/-
S.B. Marak, MCS Addl. Deputy Commissioner"Page 18 of 35
9. The Magistrate who conducted the enquiry submitted a report dated 28.10.2013 that the whole allegations appeared "simply to be based on hearsays and doubts without concrete supportive statements. Whatever statements were made had only been on expressions of doubts and probabilities." The copy of the enquiry report dated 28.10.2013 is available at Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.8-23. On perusal of the enquiry report dated 28.10.2013, it appears that there is no material in support of the allegations made by the petitioners against the authorities in conducting the written test examination. When the writ petition is pending, the petitioners filed additional affidavit dated 20.11.2013 annexing affidavits of two persons namely, Shri. Didymush G Momin and Shri.Debatus R Sangma. The said Shri.Debatus R Sangma stated in his affidavit that before declaring the result for the post of LDA, Lady Supervisor and Sectional Assistant and other categories of posts, he visited the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Williamnagar and found 4(four) LDAs of the Office of DSC and the Deputy Commissioner evaluating the answer scripts of the candidates and in the list of the successful candidates in the written test examination published on 19.06.2013, their relatives were included. Para 3 of the additional affidavit of said Shri. Debatus R Sangma reads as follows:-
"That the District Selection Committee, declared the result for the post of L.D.A. and others dated 19-06-2013 and its reflected in the result sheet/notice that 2 (two) Sisters-in-law of Smti. Pona K.Sangma (Evaluator) are selected for the post of L.D.A., namely (i) Smti. Saritha Ch. Marak, Roll No. 42 and (ii) Smti. Amritha Ch. Marak, Roll No. 425, Smti. Sengchi G.Momin (Evaluator) Cousin Sister, Miss Dimsrie S.Momin (Roll No. 781) and Sister, Miss Munchibell G.Momin (Roll No. 767) are selected for the post of L.D.A., Smti. Isenlotha M. Sangma (UDA, DSC) and Evaluator's relative son, Shri. Decem N. Arengh (Roll No. 1024) and relative daughter, Miss Jedidia N. Arengh (Roll No. 206) are also selected for the post of L.D.A.s and one of the Candidate Shri. Nicholas D. Shira bearing Roll No. 325 had not appeared for the Interview for the post of L.D.A. but he was also declared selected for the post of L.D.A. by D.S.C. Williamnagar."Page 19 of 35
10. Shri. Debatus R Sangma in his affidavit did not mention the date on which he visited the Deputy Commissioner's office and also did not mention the particulars of the room of the Deputy Commissioner's office where the said 4(four) LDAs evaluating the answer scripts and he did not even state that as to how and why he entered the Deputy Commissioner's office where the alleged evaluation of answer scripts were carried out by the evaluators. The said relatives of the LDA of the Deputy Commissioner's office included in the list of the successful candidates in the written test examination were not party in the present writ petition. The petitioners did not give any materials/substantial evidence/documents for the allegations against the said relatives of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office except the said vague affidavits of the said two persons after filing the writ petition and also did not give any reasons as to why the said relatives were not made party in the present writ petition. The vague affidavits of the said two persons, long after the filing of the present writ petition cannot be accepted without any supporting or collaborating materials.
11. The respondents 1-7 filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated very clearly that the petitioners, who were allowed to inspect the answer scripts, did not turn out except few. For transparency in conducting the recruitment test including the written examination, reasonable opportunities had been given to the candidates including the petitioners to inspect his/her respective answer scripts and over and above, they were allowed to see the answer scripts of the other candidates. The candidates, who appeared in the magisterial enquiry conducted by Shri. S.B. Marak, MCS, Williamnagar did not give any material statements in support of their allegations but what they had stated were that they had certain doubts in conducting the written test examination as their names were not included in Page 20 of 35 the list of the successful candidates. The State respondents further stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the process for written test examination could not be manipulated by the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office as the entire process for written test examination was conducted by the DSC, there were three non-official members and Member Secretary also involved in the entire selection process. Prior to declaration of the result, the result sheets as well as answer scripts of the candidates were checked and verified by all concerned so that only deserving and meritorious candidates were short listed or selected. As such, the allegations of the petitioners in the present writ petition that the selection process/written test examination were manipulated by the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office for inserting their relatives in the list of the successful candidates were not correct and also there was no possibility of manipulating the selection process or the written test examination by the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office.
12. The allegations of the petitioners in the present writ petition against the authorities in conducting the written test examination and also leakage of question papers are only based on surmises and conjectures and that the allegations are unfounded and unjustified. The writ petitioners filed the present writ petition, only after their names were not included in the list of the successful candidates and after appearing the written test examination without any complaint, objection and demur, by alleging the allegations on surmises and conjectures. The conduct of the petitioners, who tried their luck in the written test examination and waited about 10 months for the result of the written test examination, without making any complaint and filed the present writ petition only after the result was not favourable to them show the lack of bonafide in filing the present writ petition. The Apex Court in Ritesh Tewari & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2010) 10 SCC 677 held Page 21 of 35 that power under Article 226 of the constitution of India is discretionary and supervisory in nature; it is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. Paras 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the SCC in Ritesh Tewari's case (Supra) read as follows:
"26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. CIT: (1971) 3 SCC 20: AIR 1970 SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike V. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 622: AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC v. Asha Goel: (2001) 2 SCC 160: AIR 2001 SC 549; Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (2002) 3 SCC 496; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan: (2003) 6 SCC 545: 2003 SCC (L&S) 951; and Punjab Roadways, v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. : (2010) 5 SCC 235).
27. Where a party's claim is not founded on valid grounds, the party cannot claim equity. A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis-à-vis the others unjustly. (vide: Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim (2001) 5 SCC 629)
28. In A P State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills : (1994) 2 SCC 647: AIR 1984SC 2151, this Court observed:- (SCC p. 662, para 18) Page 22 of 35 "Equity is always known to defend the law from clefty evasions and new subtelities invented to evade law."
29. In M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana : (1984) 4 SCC 371:AIR 1984 SC 1888, this Court held: (SCC p.374, para 5) "5. ......it is open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its undoubted discretionary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice. The Court always has power to refuse relief where the petitioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest advantage or perpetrate an unjust gain."
30. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481:1984 SCC (L&S)676: (1994) 27 ATC 116 considered the scope of equity jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and pointed out as follows: (SCC p.486, para 5) "5. .....It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good."
13. The Apex Court in Abhyudya Sanstha Vs Union of India:
(2011) 6 SCC 145 held that petitioner must come with clean hands for obtaining interim order; and for the injury suffered by the students due to misrepresentation of fact, compensation of Rs. 1 lakh had been awarded by the Apex Court to each of the students.
14. The Apex Court in A Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President & Ors: (2012) 6 SCC 430 held that every litigant is expected to state the truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. It is imperative that the Judges must have complete grip of the facts before they start dealing with the case. Para 23, 24, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the SCC in A Shanmugam's case (Supra) read as follows: Page 23 of 35
"23. We reiterate the immense importance and relevance of purity of pleadings. The pleadings need to be critically examined by the judicial officers or Judges both before issuing the ad interim injunction and/or framing of issues.
24. The entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. Truth is the basis of the justice delivery system. This Court in Dalip Singh V State of U.P: (2010) 2 SCC 114 observed that: (SCC p.116, para 1):
"1. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system."
26. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleadings are the foundation of litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy themselves as to the correctness and authenticity of the matter pleaded.
27. The pleadings must set forth sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the court must approach it with clean hands.
28. It was imperative that the Judges must have complete grip of the facts before they start dealing with the case. That would avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of the cases.
29. Ensuring discovery and production of documents and a proper admission/denial is imperative for deciding civil cases in a proper perspective. In relevant cases, the courts should encourage interrogatories to be administered."
15. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that in a writ petition, the court cannot carry out a roving and fishing inquiry with regard to the allegations made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition inasmuch as, the allegations made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition should be supported by materials and adequate information. Regarding this fairly settled law, it would be sufficed to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Page 24 of 35 Purushottam Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand & Ors: (2006) 9 SCC 458
(ii) Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority v. S. Vasudeva & Ors: (2000) 2 SCC 439; and (iii) Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.:
(2004) 3 SCC 349.
16. It is well settled that whenever the allegations as to mala fides have been leveled, sufficient particulars and cogent materials making out prima facie case must be set out in the pleadings. Vague allegations or bald assertion that the action taken was mala fide and malicious is not enough. In the absence of material particulars, the court is not expected to make fishing inquiry into the matter. Para 23 of the SCC in Purushottam Kumar Jha's case (Supra) reads as follows:-
"23. It is well settled that whenever allegations as to mala fides have been leveled, sufficient particulars and cogent materials making out prima facie case must be set out in the pleadings. Vague allegations or bald assertion that the action taken was mala fide and malicious is not enough. In the absence of material particulars, the court is not expected to make "fishing"
inquiry into the matter. It is equally well established and needs no authority that the burden of proving mala fides is on the person making the allegations and such burden is "very heavy". Malice cannot be inferred or assumed. It has to be remembered that such a charge can easily be "made than made out" and hence it is necessary for the courts to examine it with extreme care, caution and circumspection. It has been rightly described as "the last refuge of a losing litigant". (Vide Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra: (1976) 1 SCC 800; Ajit kumar Nag v. GM (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764: 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020)".
Para 6 of the SCC in Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority case (Supra) reads as follows:-
"6. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the High Court travelled way beyond the scope of the writ petition which was before it. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the out-of-turn allotments in favour of MLAs, MPs and others who were impleaded as Respondent 4 to 38 before the High Court. The further prayer was that permission which had been granted to some of these MLAs, MPs and others to transfer plots of land which had been allotted to them should also be quashed.Page 25 of 35
It is pertinent to note that in this writ petition there was no challenge either to the registration of the respondent Society with BDA or to the allotment of land to the Society as such. As already noted, the challenge was to the allotment to the 34 persons who were stated to be members of the said Society. The High Court, on the other hand, not only came to the conclusion that bulk allotment of land was not permissible but also directed the constitution of a committee to go into all allotments made by BDA. The effect of this would be that the Committee which was sought to be constituted was empowered to carry out a roving and fishing inquiry with regard to allotments of land made by BDA since the time it was constituted in the year 1976. ...................."
Para 14 of the SCC in Ashok Kumar Pandey's case (Supra) reads as follows:-
"14. The Court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. ...................."
17. The Apex Court in Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.: (2010) 10 SCC 707 held that irregularity of allowing near relatives to appear in the selection process was not such a factor to vitiate the entire selection process. Paras 23 & 27 of the SCC in Girjesh Shrivastava's case (Supra) read as follows:-
"23. Also in B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P.: (2002) 5 SCC 533:
2002 SCC (L&S) 780, where selection of certain teachers was challenged without impleading them, this Court held: (SCC pp.542-43, para 19) "19. Selection process had commenced long back as early as in 1998 and it had been completed. The persons selected were appointed pursuant to the selections made and had been performing their duties.
However, the selected candidates had not been Page 26 of 35 impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in their individual capacity or in any representative capacity. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have examined any of the questions raised before it in the proceedings initiated before it. The writ petitions filed by the respondents concerned ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a public interest litigation."
27. In Charanjit Singh v. Harinder Sharma: (2002) 9 SCC 732: 2002 SCC (L&S) 1134 a similar situation had arisen. In that case, while not approving the interference of the High Court in the selection process, this Court held that merely because some of the candidates in the selection process happened to be relatives of the members of the Selection Committee, it did not mean that all the candidates were relatives of the members of the Selection Committee and had been illegally selected. It was also held that since the petition was not made by any of the candidates who had appeared in the selection process and was instead filed as a public interest litigation, it was improper for the High Court to interfere in the matter."
18. The said relatives of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office, Williamnagar, whose names were included in the list of the successful candidates in the written test examination, are not party in the present writ petition. The present case is not the case where the selection proceeding is challenged on the ground that the selection proceeding as a whole is illegal. It is improper to allege serious allegations against the said relatives without making them as party in the present writ petition and they cannot be condemned unheard also. The petitioners, who are making serious allegations against the authorities in conducting the written test examination, more particularly, against the Deputy Commissioner and leakage of question papers, are to prove the said serious allegations. It is neither the court nor the respondents to search for the materials to support the allegations made by the petitioners in the present writ petition inasmuch as, the burden of proof of the said allegations made by the petitioners is on the petitioners themselves. It is fairly settled that presumption arises in regard to the Page 27 of 35 correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. The Apex Court in Union of India & Ors v. Bikash Kuanar: (2006) 8 SCC 192 held that:-
"14. When a Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In the instant case, no such allegations was made. The selection process was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to our notice. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the said Pitamber Majhi by reason of higher marks obtained by him in the matriculation examination also cannot be said to be a better candidate than the respondent herein. In this view of the matter, we do not find any fault with the impugned judgment of the High Court."
19. It is fairly settled law that candidates calculatingly appeared at the examination and interview without any protest and consequently found to be unsuccessful, they cannot turn around and question the result. The Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors v. Shkntala Shukla & Ors: (2002) 6 SCC 127 held that:-
"33. Subsequently, the decision in Om Prakash: 1986 Supp SCC 285: 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 stands followed by a later decision of this Court in Madan Lal. v. State of J & K: (1995) 3 SCC 486: 1995 SCC (L&S) 712: (1995) 29 ATC 603 wherein this Court stated as below: (SCC p.493, paras 9-10) "9 Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, Page 28 of 35 only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla: 1986 Supp SCC 285: 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee".
34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
20. Mr. AH Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors: (2010) 6 SCC 614 and; (ii) East Coast Railway & Anr v. Mhdev Appa Rao & Ors:
(2010) 7 SCC 678 and contended that the result of the written test examination should be cancelled as there were leakage of question papers Page 29 of 35 and favouritism and nepotism and also that many of the selected candidates are the relatives of the staff of the Deputy Commissioner's office. In the aforesaid paras, this Court had already discussed as to whether the petitioners had substantiated the allegations made by them or not?; and also made findings in the aforesaid paras that there is no materials for satisfying prima facie that the writ petitioners had substantiated the allegations. It is well settled that the decision of the Apex Court is an authority for which it is decided and the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background fact of that case. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The Apex Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugr Mill (P) Ltd. & Anr: (2003) 2 SCC 111 held that:-
"59. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. [See Ram Rakhi v. Union of India: AIR 2002 Del 458 (FB), Delhi Admn. (NCT of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal: (2002) 7 SCC 222: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1670: AIR 2002 SC 3088, Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Jagdamba Oil Mills: (2002) 3 SCC 496: JT (2002) 1 SC 482 and Nalini Mahajan (Dr) v. Director of income Tax (Investigation): (2002) 257 ITR 123 (Del)]."
21. The Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors: (2007) 11 SCC 92 held that:-
"12. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra: AIR 1968 SC 647 (vide AIR pp. 651- 52, para 13):
"13....... A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury, L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495: (1900-03) All ER Rep 1 (HL): (All ER p.7 G-I) " Before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood: 1898 AC 1: (1895-99) All ER Rep 52 (HL) and Page 30 of 35 what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all."
(emphasis supplied)
13. In Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat: (1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide SCC p.221, para 18) this Court observed:
"18. ........The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it."
14. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P). Ltd:
(2003) 2 SCC 111 (vide SCC p.130, para 59), this Court observed:
"59. .... It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision."
(emphasis supplied)
15. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. N.R.Vairamani: (2004) 8 SCC 579: AIR 2004 SC 4778, a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same Judgment this Court also observed:
(SCC pp.584-85, pars 9-12) "9. Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid`s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the Page 31 of 35 discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton: 1951 AC 737: (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL) (AC at p.761) Lord Mac Dermot observed: (All ER p.14 C-D) 'The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge, ..........'
10. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. : 1970 AC 1004: (1970) 2 WLR 1140: (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL) (All ER p.297 g-h) Lord Reid said, 'Lord Atkin`s speech ..... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.' Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. V. Sandham (No.2): (1971)1 WLR 1062: (1971) 2 All ER 1267, observed: (All ER p.1274d) 'One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L. J. as if it were an Act of Parliament;' And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board: 1972 AC 877: (1972) 2 WLR 537: (1972) 1 All ER 749 [HL (E)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p.761c) 'There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.'
11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:
'Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo,) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.' Page 32 of 35 *** *** *** *** 'Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.' (emphasis supplied)
22. The fact of the case in Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board's case (Supra) is diametrically different from the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition. In Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board's case (Supra) there is a vigilance report indicating that there are prima facie materials revealing the leakage of question papers, mass copying and impersonation of the candidates in the written test. The said vigilance report had been considered by the Railway Board and directed the Railway Recruitment Board to conduct a retest for the recruitment to Group 'D' post. In the present case in hand, the Magistrate, who conducted the enquiry for the serious allegations made by the petitioners against the authorities conducting the selection process, in his report made findings that the allegations made by the petitioners appears simply to be based on hearsays and doubts with no concrete supportive statements. Paras 3, 4, 5, & 6 of the SCC in Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board's case (Supra) read as follows:-
3. During verification it was noticed that certain malpractices had taken place in the written examination. Meanwhile, several complaints were also received by RRB stating that certain candidates had indulged in mass copying in some centres, including leakage of question papers and impersonation of certain candidates. Since large-scale irregularities and malpractices were noticed it was decided to refer the matter to the State Vigilance Department.
4. The Vigilance Department conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted its report which was placed before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. Portions of the report extracted in the judgment of the High Court prima facie revealed leakage of question papers; mass copying and Page 33 of 35 impersonation of candidates in the written test. The report also indicated the possibility of involvement of some employees of the Railways and outsiders in the malpractices detected. The Vigilance Department also recommended that the matter be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
5. The vigilance report and the various complaints were examined by the Railway Board and the Board after discussing the matters with RRB gave a direction vide its letter dated 4-6-
2004 to conduct a retest for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"The Board having gone into complete details of the matter in view of the nature of malpractices/irregularities involved, it has been decided that candidates obtaining minimum qualifying marks may be subjected to another written examination by conducting the same in good educational institutions under tight control and supervision. This would ensure the exclusion of those who might have secured undue advantage in the earlier examination. Thereafter, candidates may be called for PET on the basis of fresh merit list irrespective of the fact whether some of them had appeared in PET held in February 2004."
6. The Railway Board also ordered that the cases of the candidates referred to GEQD including those found guilty during the course of investigation by the Vigilance or CBI be dealt with as per the extant rules at the time of preparation of the final panel or later stage. RRB was directed to take steps to conduct written examination and PET at the earliest. The Railway Board vide its letter dated 1-9-2004 directed RRB to go ahead with the examination scheduled on 26-9-2004."
23. The Apex Court held that it is difficult to sustain an order i.e. neither based on enquiry nor even a prima facie view taken upon a due and proper application of mind to relevant facts. The Apex Court in East Coast Railway's case (Supra) further held that if the test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who failed to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. Para 26 of the SCC in East Coast Railway's case (Supra) reads as follows:-
Page 34 of 35
"26. If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh Case. The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct." (emphasis supplied)
24. For the foregoing discussions, writ petition i.e. WP(C)No.288/2013 is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
25. As WP(C)No.288/2013 had been dismissed, the State respondents in WP(C)No.268/2013, WP(C)No.269/2013 and WP(C)No.270/2013 may fix the date for viva voce test for the candidates successful in the written test for the posts advertised in the advertisement dated 10.02.2012, if the State respondents decide to complete the selection process which had already been started. However, the State respondents shall take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this common judgment and order.
26. In the result, WP(C)No.268/2013, WP(C)No.269/2013 and WP(C)No.270/2013 are allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE Lam Page 35 of 35