SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya on the fourth day of hearing on Thursday referred to a criminal case related to the education scam, which was registered in 2011 and is pending at Laitumkhrah police station.
The FIR is regarding the criminal liability to be fixed on erring personnel involved in the education scam.
The court, while hearing several petitions on the scam, said in view of the issues raised during submissions made by various counsels, Advocate General B.P Todi was requested to requisition the case diary relating to FIR filed in Laitumkhrah police station in 2011 as also the record of disciplinary proceedings against the then Director, Elementary and Mass Education.
The advocate general pointed out that the case diary has been brought in the court by I.O Swer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the present investigating officer in the matter.
Todi also pointed out that the file of the disciplinary proceedings has also been brought by the concerned officer of the department.
The court said the advocate general may examine the case diary as also the record of the disciplinary proceedings and keep them available before the court on the next date of hearing.
The court further said in the order passed on Wednesday, it had permitted the advocate general to submit an affidavit of the responsible officer of the department concerned as regards to the queries, which had come up and as regards any other clarifications, if sought to be given with reference to the submissions of the petitioners to the litigation.
“Such affidavit should now be filed positively before the matter is taken up for consideration next,” the court said.
The advocate general submitted that in view of multifarious submissions made and various issues involved, he needed a few days’ time to complete all his instructions and submit the affidavit as also short written submissions.
The court allowed the request and hence fixed the hearing for Tuesday (May 30).
Earlier, during the hearing, after counsel K. Paul summed up his submission, the court heard the counsels appearing for several other petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates.
On behalf of the appellants, counsel P.T Sangma argued that there had been a specific allegation that undeserving candidates were included in the select list. However, referring to other cases, the counsel submitted that there had not been any such specific allegation by the applicants.
The submissions on the part of counsel L. Phanjom and counsel N. Gurung were that the applicants were unsuccessful candidates but they deserved to be substituted as selected candidates in place of the alleged tainted ones.
The court also heard counsels M.F Qureshi, S.D Upadhaya, K. Baruah, R. Jha and K.C Gautam appearing for the appellants whose submission is that several candidates deserve to be appointed as being eligible and having been wrongly deprived earlier.
