WELCOME VAICHEI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners 71 in number have questioned the validity of the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 as in Annexure-VI to the writ petition by which the Departmental Examination for promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (for short, "ASI") in the rank of Sub- Inspector of Police (for short, "SI") held from 23rd to 25th February, 2000, has been declared null and void, and the results declared vide office order dated 2nd Junes, 2000, as in Annexure-IV and V to the writ petition, have been cancelled.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the Office of the Inspector General of Police vide memo dated 26.2.1999, as in Annexure-III to the writ petition, nominated 326 ASIs including this petitioners to appear in the Departmental Examination for promotion to the rank of SI, and the examination was held on 23rd & 24th February, 2000, in the premises of Shillong Law College where 326 candidates including the petitioner took the examination in presence of invigilators, and during the examination no complaint whatsoever from any quarter was lodged of any unfair means being adopted by the candidates. Apart from that the invigilators also had not reported about any unfair means being adopted, and the results of the examination are declared vide order/ memo. dated 2.6.2000, as in Annexures- IV and V to the petition, but to a great punishment, the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong, declared the said Departmental Examination as null and void thus cancelling the results of the same under the impugned order dated 21.7.2000, mentioned above, without any justification.

(3.) Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel, contended that prior to cancellation of the results, the respondent-authorities did not issue any notice to the petitioners, neither any enquiry was made nor opportunity of showing cause or hearing was afforded to the petitioners, and, as such, the action of the State-respondents in cancelling the results is violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Koshy George-Vs-University of Kerala, AIR 1996 SC 198; Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.-Vs- Kumari Chittra Srivastava, AIR 1970 SC 1039; Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P.-Vs- Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875, and yet another case between Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. - Vs-Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110, and the decision of this Court rendered in Prafulla Chandra Das-Vs- State of Tripura, (1996) 2 GLT 171; (1996) 3 GLR 141, and submitted that it is incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to issue show cause notice to the candidates and to the persons concerned before inflicting the penalty of cancellation and adequate opportunity to defend the person or persons against whom the action is to be taken, should be afforded before infliction of any penalty. According to Mr Sen, learned senior counsel, no opportunity of being heard or to have their say or a prior notice was given afforded to the present writ petitioners before the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 as in Annexure-VI to the writ petition was passed by the respondent-authority and, as such, the impugned order dated 21.7.2000 deserves to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is to be submitted that there is/ was no fair play on the part of the respondents/authority concerned while putting the impugned order by which the legitimate right of the writ petitioners for their promotion to the posts of SI has been deprive of. Mr Sen went on to contend that these petitioners later on came to know that an enquiry was initiated by the Inspector General of Police (CID), Meghalaya who submitted his report on 7.7.2000, and on the basis of the findings arrived at by the said Enquiry Officer, the results of the examination were cancelled though the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard or to have their say in the said enquiry. Apart from that the said enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, and that being the position, these writ petitioners have been condemned unheard.