The High Court of Calcutta commented on the case of admission process being corrupt and fraudulent involving the seats of MDS course(Master of Dental Surgery). The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta led by the division bench through Mr Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Mr Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj in the case of Amiya Sarkar v. the State of West Bengal & Ors[WPA/7729/2020].

The petitioner, Amiya Sarkar, moved on to the High Court with the contention, that the State University was aware of the fact that the applicants before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being private respondents herein were not entitled to the benefits. Moreover, it was the duty of the respondent authorities to direct the private respondents to vacate their seats being occupied by them illegally and fraudulently.

Also, that the Respondent No. 2 was under the obligation of law to direct the proceeding to be initiated against the private respondents and also against those who had assisted the private respondent in closing their eyes against the illegal activities of the private respondent for some extraneous conditions.

Furthermore, it was the duty on part of Respondent No. 2 to act in terms of the provision of Rule 3(1)(i) of the West Bengal Dental Service (for Placement of Trainee Reserve) Rules, 2013, which clearly provides for the criteria to fill up seats for admission in MDS as an ‘in service’ candidate under the Trainee Reserve quota and the same cannot be allowed to be violated by the respondent authorities.

The High Court agreed with the supra contention that it was a well-principled rule of law that, fraud vitiates everything and no right and/or it equity is created by the practice of fraud. “It cannot be denied that it is the duty of the state authorities to be loyal, honest, fair and impartial to the public at large and not to a person or persons, who by way of his connections with the higher authorities adopt corrupt and fraud practices.”

The court while accepting the petitioner’s contention, however, concluded that since this public interest litigation has been read before this on the double court on September 18, 2020 that is after three years since the private respondent began his MDS course. “Therefore, due to this lapse of time, it would not be equitable to interfere with the private respondent’s completion of the MDS course. Given the circumstances of this case, the parties will bear their own costs. “

The Hon’ble Court for the foregoing reasons dismissed the writ petition.

Click here to read the judgement.

Judgement reviewed by- Pranav Vyas.

The District Council Courts are conferred with powers and jurisdiction to try suits and cases between members of the Scheduled Tribes community residing within the territorial jurisdiction of such courts as upheld by the High Court of Meghalaya through the learned bench led by Justice W. Diengdoh in the case of Smti. Clarinda Momin Vs. Smti. Brishmony G. Momin (FA. No. 1 of 2019)

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant herein is the executor of the last Will and Testament of her elder brother (Late) Pleander G. Momin, who during his lifetime had executed his last Will and Testament on 31.08.2004, bequeathing all his landed property including four residential standing houses and other belongings, moveable and immoveable to the Appellant to the exclusion of the Respondent who was his first wife. The said elder brother of the Appellant expired on 23.09.2004. The Appellant had made an application before the Garo Hills District Council Court at Tura for administration of the last Will and Testament as stated above and the learned Court vide order dated 10.05.2007 had granted probate of the Will in favour of the Appellant. Respondent being aggrieved by the said order had approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench with a revision application and the Hon’ble High Court after hearing the parties vide judgment and order had allowed the said revision application and has set aside the probate of the Will and has further directed that the case be transferred to the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong. On being pending before the said court for a long time, the Learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) has concluded that the court is a wrong forum for the parties to pursue the matter both being tribal belonging to the Garo community and as such, only the Garo Hills District Council Court has got jurisdiction to try the matter. The Appellant has failed to array the Respondent herein as a necessary opposite party in the said Probate which prompted the Court of the Judge District Council Court, to pass the impugned order rejecting the application of the Appellant herein. Hence, this appeal.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held “Given the facts as stated above and having held that the said Court of the Judge, District Council Court, GHADC has the jurisdiction to try the matter, the issue of limitation ought to have been taken up taking into account the provision of Sub-Section 2 of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which squarely covered the case of the Appellant/Petitioner. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and quashed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

The die-in-harness scheme was framed by the State Government to bring solace and benefit to the family of the deceased Government employee who suddenly became without a source of income on the death of the Government employee as upheld by the High Court of Manipur through the learned bench led by Justice M.V. Muralidaran in the case of N.Thangkhankhual v. The State of Manipur and ors. (WP(C) No.393 of 2021)

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner’s father John Chithang Naulak, while working as an Inspector in the Sericulture Department, died on 4.10.2002 and the petitioner being the eldest son submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. However, at the relevant point of time, the Government had withdrawn the dis-in-harness scheme for some time only to restore it after a few years. After the restoration of the scheme, it was notified that the family members of the deceased employees who had died during the period of withdrawal and restoration will be eligible for compassionate appointment as per the death of the deceased employee, subject to the family member applying for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner, who has earlier applied at the time of the death of his father, again applied to the authorities for giving him compassionate appointment to a suitable post, preferably Class-III 3 post like Lower Division Clerk as he was a graduate having passed his B.A (Hons) in political Science. In the meantime, it came to the notice of the petitioner that, some tampering had been made in the list of the claimants for compassionate appointment, whereby a person lower to him was placed have him. Not only that, the date of the petitioner’s father expiry was tampered with by pushing it back by a year later. Aggrieved by such tampering, the petitioner has filed to quash such tampering and sought for compassionate appointment. By an order dated 11.2.2015, this Court allowed the writ petition. However, the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that there were two more claimants to the post of LDC, Grade-III above the petitioner will the available post of LDC was only one and the petitioner was advised that his claim will be considered when there are vacancies available in the Department.

The Hon’ble Court held, “In the present case, as stated supra, the petitioner has been making for almost 20 years waited and in fact, the petitioner and his family members, including his widowed mother continued to live in a penuries condition without any employment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the penury condition of the family of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is merit in the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani