Allowed

Smti Disaka Elliotte Laloo v. Meghalaya Public Service Commission

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020WA/44/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-paragraph order allowing the withdrawal of a writ appeal challenging a suspension of appointment. The court accords liberty to file a fresh petition against subsequent orders not challenged earlier, explicitly reserving adjudication on merits for the future petition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging subsequent orders not previously impugned; no adjudication on merits.

Smti Disaka Elliotte Laloo Vs Meghalaya… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010032052019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WA 44/2019

¶5

1:SMTI DISAKA ELLIOTTE LALOO

¶6

DAUGHTER OF DR. D. KHONGLAH, RESIDENT OF MOOSALYNGKAT, JOWAI, WEST JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:MEGHALAYA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LACHUMIERE, SHILLONG

¶9

2:THE CHAIRMAN

¶10

MEGHALAYA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LACHUMIERE SHILLONG

¶11

3:THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF MEGHALAYA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT MEGHALAYA

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate.

¶13

Ms. I. Das, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate.

¶15

- B E F O R E -

¶16

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 03-02-2020 (Ajai Lamba, C.J.)

¶19

Smti. Disaka Elliotte Laloo has preferred this writ appeal challenging judgment & order dated 29.06.2017 passed by High Court of Meghalaya rendered in WP(C) No.149/2017 (Smti. Disaka Elliotte Laloo -Vs- Meghalaya Public Service Commission & Ors.).

¶20

Page No.# 2/3

¶21

2. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the writ appeal be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to prefer a writ petition in challenge to subsequent orders passed by the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel has pointed out the peculiar facts of the case. It has been stated that WP(C) No.149/2017 was filed with the prayer that order dated 06.04.2017 be quashed and letter of appointment be issued in the name of the appellant/petitioner, appointing her as Ayurvedic Physician. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court towards the order impugned by virtue of the writ petition. Vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition), the Meghalaya Public Service Commission, Shillong decided to keep the result for the post of Ayurvedic Physician under Health & Family Welfare Department declared vide the Notification dated 04.04.2017 in suspended animation until further orders.

¶23

3. Learned counsel has pointed out that it is apparent from the language of the order that it was passed as an interim arrangement. Learned counsel has further pointed out that subsequently order dated 26.05.2017 was passed vide which a communication was sent to the appellant/petitioner by Controller of Examination, Meghalaya Public Service Commission to the effect that decision of the Commission to keep order dated 04.04.2017 in suspended animation was due to issues raised in complaints received, which were found serious in nature. Allegation was made that selection of candidates and propriety of the selection process itself was questioned with the allegation that one of the Members of the Interview Board was related to the selected candidate. An enquiry was held and on verifying the allegations made in the complaint, result declared on 04.04.2017 for the post of Ayurvedic Physician under Health & Family Welfare Department was kept in suspended animation till further decision.

¶24

The communication (dated 26.05.2017) further provided that the Commission had decided that written examination will be conducted for the said post to instil faith in the candidates. Thus, the appellant/petitioner was informed that written examination/screening test for all the posts advertised by Meghalaya Public Service Commission had been implemented with immediate effect. The Commission will no longer conduct direct interview for any post.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

4. Learned counsel has pointed out that since order dated 26.05.2017 adversely affects the rights of the appellant/petitioner and as the said order could not be challenged by virtue of the writ petition on account of oversight, the said order is required to be challenged, along with other orders.

¶27

5. Having gone through the file, we find that indeed only order dated 06.04.2017 had been questioned by virtue of filing of the writ petition. By virtue of order dated 06.04.2017, the selection finalised by the order dated 04.04.2017 was kept in suspended animation.

¶28

Subsequent order dated 26.05.2017 had not been challenged.

¶29

6. Considering various aspects of the case, we allow this appeal to be withdrawn with liberty to the writ appellant/writ petitioner to file a petition afresh in challenge to the subsequent orders, and raise any such consequential issue that may arise.

¶30

We make it clear that we have not adjudicated on any of the issues, nor have considered merit; or otherwise in the claim of the writ appellant.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smti Disaka Elliotte Laloo v. Meghalaya Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Disaka Elliotte Laloo v. Meghalaya Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Paul Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and 2 Ors.

Nirmal Chandra Taid Vs Shashindra Nath Baishya and 8 Ors.

Ms Jebun Nessa Begum Vs Md. Nazrul Haque Barbhuiya and Anr.

Smti. Sushmita Sut Vs Shri Dip Jyoti Saikia

Smti Disaka Elliotte Laloo Vs Meghalaya Public Service Commission

Saileswar Sarma and 7 Ors. Vs on Death of Shri Dharmeswar Sarma His Legal Heir Smti. Bharati Sarma and 14 Ors.