Krishna Rabha vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

The respondent No. 7 represented by Mr. S.Deb, learned counsel, by way of an objection on affidavit, has challenged the locus of the writ petitioner who questioned the appointment of the said respondent No. 7.

It has been submitted that the respondent No. 7 has no link or any connection with the grievance as put up by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, inasmuch as, his appointment was as far back as on 23-10-2019, whereas the subject matter in issue for which the writ petition has been filed is with regard to a vacancy that had arisen after 31-08-2022.

Mr. S.Deb, learned counsel submits that respondent No. 7 has unnecessarily been dragged into a controversy and that the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition with an ulterior motive, to cause undue harassment.

Mr. S.A.Sheikh, learned counsel on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 relents and prays that the respondent No. 7 be struck off from the array of parties.

This Court notes with disapproval the manner in which the matter has been conducted and wherein an unnecessary respondent has been dragged into litigation.

Accordingly, respondent No. 7 shall be struck off from the array of parties but the petitioner is directed to pay a cost of ₹ 2000/- to the said respondent for unnecessarily arraying him as a party in the proceedings.

Mr. K.P.Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-4 submits that the affidavit has been filed.

Mr. S.Deb, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Ms. S.D.Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 pray for and are allowed two weeks’ time to file their affidavits.

List this matter on 20-11-2024.

It is made clear that the cost should be paid within a period of two weeks before the matter is listed again.