Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 221 (MEG)

Ardwin Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya

2022-08-17

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The saga involving the recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Government Lower Primary Schools is sought to be continued and resurrected by way of the instant writ petition, wherein a report dated 22.02.2021, submitted by a Three Member Committee, pursuant to orders dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020, is being assailed by 66 writ petitioners. 2. The challenge this time around is however, limited to the findings of the Committee with regard to the age of the writ petitioners, 46 in number, who were declared by the Committee to be age barred and the rest 20, who were found to not possess the requisite marks, out of the total number of 66 writ petitioners. 3. It is to be noted that this issue, which has seen multiple and protracted litigation before this Court and before the Supreme Court, has its genesis in an advertisement dated 10.12.2008, whereby applications were invited by the Deputy Inspector of Schools for Recruitment to the post Assistant Teachers. The process of selection culminated in the appointment of 749 candidates, which came to be challenged by the unselected candidates by way of several writ petitions before the erstwhile jurisdictional High Court i.e. Gauhati High Court in the Shillong Bench, with the lead matter being WP(C) No. 106 (SH)/2010. The said writ petitions were then disposed of by a common judgment dated 21.10.2011, which apart for other findings, inter alia, directed for a CBI inquiry with the report to be submitted within a period of 3(three) months. This order came to be challenged by way of a bunch of writ appeals, with the lead writ appeal being No. WA No. 52 (SH) 2011 before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. 4. By a common judgment dated 16.08.2012, the Division Bench, while disposing of the appeals, held that the enquiry by the CBI was not requisite and the matter should have been left for scrutiny and inquiry by the Government. The report of the CBI was however not annulled, and it was directed that the records be reviewed and be rescrutinized by a Committee, which was to be constituted in the Education Department, which could also take beneficial assistance and guidance from the findings recorded in the said report. The report of the CBI was however not annulled, and it was directed that the records be reviewed and be rescrutinized by a Committee, which was to be constituted in the Education Department, which could also take beneficial assistance and guidance from the findings recorded in the said report. It was further directed by the Division Bench, that the services of the tainted candidates be terminated; the un-tainted candidates be retained and those who otherwise found eligible be appointed. In pursuance thereto, a High-Level Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the Government, which then submitted its report on 29.07.2013, accompanied by a finding on several tainted candidates together with the observations on other aspects of the matter. As steps were then taken to terminate the services of 246 candidates in the month of February 2014, as per the recommendation of the report, some of the terminated candidates then preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the termination orders along with the said judgment dated 16.08.2012, whereas other terminated candidates, filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the orders of termination. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the matter set aside the order impugned and remitted the matters back to this Court vide order dated 24.03.2017, to be taken up afresh. This Court in the Division Bench, then by order dated 02.11.2017, decided the said writ appeals by passing a slew of directions prescribing the manner in which the process of segregation between tainted and un-tainted/unblemished was to be conducted and the consequential action to be taken thereon. By this judgment, it was also held that the selection process dated 10.12.2008 was vitiated in some centres, and a CBI inquiry was called for, to segregate the tainted and un-tainted candidates and to submit the report thereof, to the Chief Secretary. 5. This judgment dated 02.11.2017 too, came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several Special Leave Petitions, which were filed by the State as well as other aggrieved parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing most of the SLPs, however, in SLP (C) No. 40348 of 2017, on the assertion that the petitioners therein, had not been heard by the High Court, gave them liberty to move the High Court, if they had not been heard earlier. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing most of the SLPs, however, in SLP (C) No. 40348 of 2017, on the assertion that the petitioners therein, had not been heard by the High Court, gave them liberty to move the High Court, if they had not been heard earlier. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 40348 of 2017, a review petition being Review Petition No. 3/2018 came to be filed before the Division Bench of this Court, which was disposed by order dated 14.12.2018, allowing 50 un-tainted candidates to continue in service and to be absorbed as per the terms and conditions of their selection and appointment orders. 6. Yet another writ petition being WP(C) No. 195 of 2020 then came to be filed before this Court, pertaining to candidates from 8 centres, who in fact, already stood governed by the directions contained in the judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed in WA No. 52 of 2011. The ground taken in the writ application, was that the petitioners therein, were entitled to similar treatment as was given to the tainted teachers of 5 other centres, and that an opportunity ought to have been given to them to file representations before the Chief Secretary. This Court then by order dated 22.09.2020 disposed of the matter by directing as follows: - '14. In the above facts and circumstances, in my view, interest of justice would be sub served by passing following order: (i) The petitioners are at liberty to file representation before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. Such representation shall be filed within 30 days from today for considering them as untainted teachers. The Committee headed Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary shall examine the petitioners representation as per direction contained in para 2 of operative part of the order in WA No. 52/2011 and shall take decision on such representation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation. (ii) If the Committee accepts the representation and treat the candidates as untainted, the respondents shall revoke the termination of those teachers and they shall continue in their services as Assistant Teachers in terms of order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the Division Bench in Review Petition No. 3/2018. (ii) If the Committee accepts the representation and treat the candidates as untainted, the respondents shall revoke the termination of those teachers and they shall continue in their services as Assistant Teachers in terms of order dated 14-12-2018 passed by the Division Bench in Review Petition No. 3/2018. So far as petitioners/candidates whose tainted character is confirmed by the said Committee are concerned, the consequences as laid down in para 2 of the operative part of the order in WA No. 52/2011 shall follow.' 7. In accordance with the order dated 22.09.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020, 253 out of the 260 teachers who were found to be tainted in the report of the CBI dated 13.11.2018, and recommended for termination by the Committee, vide its report dated 03.01.2020, filed their representations. The Committee after examining the said representations, then declared 187 candidates as not tainted. The remaining 66 therefore, being aggrieved by the findings of the Committee are before this Court by the instant writ petition assailing the CBI report dated 13.11.2018 and the Committee's report and recommendation dated 22.02.2021. 8. Mr. S. Khurshid, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Committee while considering the representations as allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2020, failed to take into account the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as FR & SR Rules). It is submitted that SR 6 (a) (iv) has provided that 35 years is the limit in respect of candidates in employ in Aided Schools for appointment to Meghalaya School service, provided they are eligible for the same. It is contended that the respondents ignored the said Rules which are available to candidates belonging to the SC/ST category and the age of eligibility had been reduced in the Notification and Advertisement dated 24.11.2008 and 10.12.2008. It has also been contended that the Committee did not appreciate the fact that in appointment of teachers in Government Aided Schools, SR 6 (a)(iv) has been taken into consideration and 40 years is considered to the upper limit as per a memo dated 24.05.2005, and thus there being inconsistency or variability in the eligible age, the benefit should be given to the candidates. Reference has been made to the Notification and the advertisement dated 24.11.2008 and 10.12.2008 respectively to demonstrate the discrepancy in the cutoff date prescribed therein. 9. On the question of res judicata it has been argued by the learned Senior counsel that the same will not apply as fresh grounds have arisen and the subject matter is not the same. He submits that in the case of Shimla College Education vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. reported in (2017) SCC Online Del. 8821, the petitioner had filed a 12th case on the same ground and the Court held that in the teeth of illegality, it would be unjust to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal and the writ petition was allowed. He submits that similarly in the present case for the sake of justice, the Committee is liable to be directed to take a fresh look keeping in mind the inconsistencies of the upper age limit and the cutoff age. 10. The learned Senior counsel then submits that persons having common and joint interest in the subject matter of controversy may be joined as petitioners in one writ petition, and as such the writ petitioners have filed a single writ petition as they have joint interest in the subject matter. In this context, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in (1964) SCC Online Kar. 67 in the case of M/s Mount Corporation & Ors. vs. Director of Industries and Commerce, Mysore Bangalore & Ors. The learned Senior counsel has also sought to obviate the binding nature of the judgment dated 02.11.2017 passed in WA No. 52 of 2011, by submitting that the ratio decidendi in the judgment, was holding the notification and advertisement dated 24.11.2008 and 10.12.2008, to be vitiated, whereas the rest of directions given in the said judgment are obiter dicta. To fortify this contention, learned Senior counsel has referred to the proposition of the 'Inversion Test' as used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Utility Users Welfare reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21 , wherein he quotes para 114 which is reproduced hereinbelow: - '114. To fortify this contention, learned Senior counsel has referred to the proposition of the 'Inversion Test' as used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Utility Users Welfare reported in (2018) 6 SCC 21 , wherein he quotes para 114 which is reproduced hereinbelow: - '114. In order to test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case. This test has been followed to imply that the ratio decidendi is what is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case. 'In order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent', according to John Chipman Grey, 'it must be an opinion, the formation of which, is necessary for the decision of a particular case'. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the present case, if the proposition in the order dated 02.11.2017 is removed wherein, it had been directed that if the tainted character of a candidate was confirmed by the Committee, he/she shall stand permanently debarred from seeking any Government employment, the advertisement and notification dated 10.12.2008 and 24.11.2008 would still be vitiated. Thus, he submits the remarks of the Court amount to obiter dicta and not ratio decidendi. 11. It is also to be noted that the learned Senior counsel while advancing his arguments, had at the bar submitted that only the cases of the 46 candidates who were declared over-aged was being canvassed. 12. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents in reply to the submissions has raised the following contentions: (a) The prayer as made out in the writ petition is defective and the arguments are not based on the pleadings made therein. (b) Petitioners have distinct cause of action which cannot be clubbed into one petition. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents in reply to the submissions has raised the following contentions: (a) The prayer as made out in the writ petition is defective and the arguments are not based on the pleadings made therein. (b) Petitioners have distinct cause of action which cannot be clubbed into one petition. (c) The issues raised are barred by the principles of res judicata as all the issues raised in the instant writ petition have been decided by judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 in WA No. 52 of 2011 and judgment and order dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020. (d) The Three Member Committee has considered the representations made by the petitioners and decided the same finally and as such, the same having been considered, the petitioners are not entitled and cannot be allowed further liberty to challenge the report. 13. Expanding the points of contention, firstly on the ground of res judicata, it is submitted that the writ petition is barred, as the entire matter has already been examined by this Court and directions issued. The learned AG submits that, vide the judgment dated 02.11.2017 in WA No. 52 of 2011, the CBI was directed to carry out inquiry in centres other than Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre, and for a Committee to be headed by the Chief Secretary, after examination of the said report, to carry out further inquiry if deemed necessary, and make final recommendations thereon. It is submitted that the State Government is thus bound by the recommendations so made and no further liberty was allowed to the petitioners thereafter, to challenge the basis of them being held tainted, or the consequent orders of termination. 14. The learned Advocate General submits that this Court by order dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020 allowed the tainted teachers to file a representation before a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary in terms of direction No. 2 of the judgment dated 02.11.2017. This having been done and concluded by the Committee, wherein out of 253 candidates, 187 candidates from 8 Sub-Divisions were found to be not tainted and 66 candidates found to be tainted, the same had brought a final conclusion to the representations and is enough to conclude the litigation. It is submitted that no further liberty has been accorded to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter. It is submitted that no further liberty has been accorded to the petitioners to re-agitate the matter. Learned AG has taken this Court to the relevant parts of the recommendation of the Committee and submits that in the face of the categorical finding by the Committee in respect of the 66 candidates and the clear directions of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2020, to proceed in terms of direction No. 2, contained in order dated 02.11.2017 in WA No. 52 of 2011, there is no scope for further litigation. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the following cases: - (i) Daryao v. State of U.P., (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457 ; (ii) GulabchandChhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, (1965) 2 SCR 547 : AIR 1965 SC 1153 (iii) State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation, (2006) 4 SCC 683 at page 699 15. On the other contentions as raised, the learned AG submits that the petitioners have different causes of action and the case of each petitioner/candidate contains distinct set of facts, which cannot be clubbed into one writ petition and the petitioners do not have a common interest, inasmuch as, the reasons for challenging the actions of holding them tainted differed from one case to another. Reference has been made to the following judgments: (i) Binod Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnlineJhar 107: (ii) P. Radhakrishna Naidu v. Govt. of A.P., (1977) 1 SCC 561 : (iii) Mota Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Supp SCC 600 16. The learned Advocate General in continuation then submits that even otherwise, the entire merits of the matter have been dealt with adequately by the Committee and that the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt to rekindle an issue which should stand closed. It is submitted that the Committee has recorded the explanations given by each candidate and the observations thereto, has been given in the detailed table annexed to the report dated 22.02.2021. It is submitted that the Committee has recorded the explanations given by each candidate and the observations thereto, has been given in the detailed table annexed to the report dated 22.02.2021. He submits that the petitioners at this stage cannot say that they were denied natural justice, or attempt to go behind the order of the Division Bench, or question the eligible age as prescribed in the advertisement and notification dated 10.12.2008 and 24.11.2008, as they had participated in the selection process had accepted the terms and clauses contained therein, and are therefore barred from raising any plea on this issue. 17. It is lastly submitted that adequate opportunity has already been afforded to the petitioners and nothing remains to merit any fresh consideration and the issue having been subject to multiple investigations and litigations over the last decade, deserves to be set at rest by rejecting the instant writ petition. 18. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully examined the materials on record, As observed earlier this issue has been dealt with in detail by the order dated 02.11.2017 in W.A. 52 of 2011, and the latitude given by order dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020, whereby the instant petitioners were allowed to prefer representations can be said to emanate from the order dated 02.11.2017, more particularly Para 2 of the said judgment. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced herein below: 'Conclusion and Directions: Accordingly, and in view of the above: (a) The whole of selection process under the advertisement dated 10-12-2008, as issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools in pursuance of Notification dated 24-11-2008, is held vitiated in relation to Shillong Sardar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre Centres: and is annulled subject to the proviso that only the candidates who have been treated as untainted/unblemished both in the reports of CBI and HLSC and are in service, may be allowed to continue as stop-gap arrangement until fresh selection takes place. (b) The prayer of other untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres for induction in service stands rejected. (c) However, all the untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres, whether in service or not, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if otherwise eligible in accordance with the presently applicable Rules/Guidelines, without necessity of their applying afresh. (b) The prayer of other untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres for induction in service stands rejected. (c) However, all the untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres, whether in service or not, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if otherwise eligible in accordance with the presently applicable Rules/Guidelines, without necessity of their applying afresh. In this regard it is also provided that none of such untainted/ unblemished candidates shall be treated as age-barred if he/she was within the age prescribed by the notification dated 24-11-2008. (d) None of the candidates who has been found tainted/blemished, whether in the report of CBI or in the report of HLSC or both as also none of the candidates who had been recommended by the public representative shall be taken or retained in service even in stop-gap arrangement and the service of every such candidate, who is yet continuing, whether by way of regular appointment or in ad hoc arrangement, shall stand terminated with immediate effect. 2. For the candidates who have been found tainted/blemished in the CBI report and/or HLSC report for Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre, it is provided that any such candidate, if so desires, may make a representation, within 30 days from today, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya for consideration as untainted candidate. The Chief Secretary shall get such representation/s examined by a three-member Committee, comprising of himself; and one member from the State Civil Services having unblemished service record and of impeccable integrity; and one independent member from any Central or State Educational Institution or University. The said Committee shall take decision on such representation/s within 60 days of making; and if the Committee would accept the representation and treat the candidate as untainted, he/she shall be entitled to the right of participation in the fresh selection process at par with other untainted candidates. It is, however, made clear that if the Committee would confirm the tainted character of any such candidate, he/she shall stand permanently debarred from seeking any Government employment and shall also be liable for penalty quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) that shall be deposited in the State Disaster Management Fund. 3. It is, however, made clear that if the Committee would confirm the tainted character of any such candidate, he/she shall stand permanently debarred from seeking any Government employment and shall also be liable for penalty quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) that shall be deposited in the State Disaster Management Fund. 3. So far the Centres other than Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadengre are concerned, it is directed that: a) CBI shall carry out similar nature inquiry, as carried out earlier in pursuance of the order date 21.10.2011 and shall similarly segregate the tainted and untainted candidates and submit its report to the Chief Secretary within six months from today. For this purpose, the State Government shall, within two weeks from today, hand over the entire record relating to all the Centres to the CBI without fail. b) As soon as the report is submitted by the CBI, it shall be required of the Chief Secretary to act on such report of CBI through the same Committee as ordered hereinabove. In this regard, it is provided that: i) The said Committee headed by the Chief Secretary shall examine the report of CBI and shall carry out such further inquiry as deemed fit and necessary but shall make final recommendation to the State Government within 3 months of receipt of the report from CBI. ii) If large scale manipulations and/or interference of public representative or any other person are found, the Committee may recommend scrapping of whole of the selection process of that Centre too; and the State Government shall act accordingly. In such an eventuality, the directions in the foregoing paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply. iii) If no illegalities and manipulations are found in any Centre or if the extent of irregularities in any particular Centre are not of higher magnitude and no case of interference by any public representative or any other person is found, the selection process of such Centre may be approved by the Committee subject to appropriate orders relating to the tainted or blameworthy candidate, if any; and the State Government shall act accordingly. 4(a) Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 62(7) of 2011 stands withdrawn from the State Police and stands transferred to the CBI for appropriate investigation and submission of its result within six months from today. 4(a) Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 62(7) of 2011 stands withdrawn from the State Police and stands transferred to the CBI for appropriate investigation and submission of its result within six months from today. (b) The Case Diary of Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 62(7) of 2011 as submitted by the State Government, shall be handed over to the learned counsel for CBI for onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong. (c) The other records of CBI pertaining to the inquiry proceedings in PE2(A)/2011-SHG shall also be handed over to the learned counsel for CBI for onward transmission to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Shillong. 5. The disciplinary proceedings against the then Director, Elementary and Mass Education shall continue and the case file of disciplinary proceedings be returned to the learned Advocate General for appropriate transmission. The other certified copies and the documents in relation to the proceedings of the HLSC as also appointment orders be handed over to the learned Advocate General. 6. All the appeals and writ petition in this group stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.' 19. The order dated 02.11.2017 in WA No. 52 of 2011, had allowed the candidates who had been found tainted/blemished in the CBI report and/or the High-Level Scrutiny Committee report in five centres, to make representations within 30 days before the Chief Secretary for consideration as untainted candidate. As the pointed case of the petitioners, was that they had not been able to file their representations within 30 days, as stipulated in Para-2 of the operative part of the order dated 02.11.2017 in WA No. 52 of 2011, this Court by order dated 22.09.2020 in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020 in consideration thereof on the reasons as shown, allowed the same liberty to the petitioners. The liberty so given was on the ground that the petitioners could not file the representations earlier, as a copy of the CBI report was not made available to them. 20. In the considered view of this Court, with the grant of the liberty and the subsequent proceedings before the Committee, wherein the representations were examined and recommendations made thereon, no further cause of action has accrued to the petitioners, to reagitate for re-examination of the matter on the contentions as raised. 20. In the considered view of this Court, with the grant of the liberty and the subsequent proceedings before the Committee, wherein the representations were examined and recommendations made thereon, no further cause of action has accrued to the petitioners, to reagitate for re-examination of the matter on the contentions as raised. It is pertinent to note herein, that on the question of the age criteria, which has been put forth as the main ground to impugn the findings of the Committee, apart from the fact that no challenge had ever been put to the notification and advertisement dated 10.12.2008 and 24.11.2008, the Committee had considered and also addressed this issue and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- 'XV. Age relaxation claimed under Order dated 24/05/2005: 1. The Committee, while scrutinizing the representations, noticed another claim for age relaxation by some candidates. Some candidates have claimed age relaxation under Govt. Order No. 196/2003/31 dated 24/05/2005. Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. As per this Order, the upper age limit for the employment of SC/ST candidates in Govt. Aided schools may be considered up to 40 years as per the provisions of S.R. 6(a) (iv) of the Meghalaya F.R. & S.R. 1984. (ANNEXURE-VIII). 2. Order No. 196/2003/31 dated 24/05/2005, from the Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, is related to the SC/ST candidates' employment in Government Aided Schools. This Order has no relevance to the recruitment of Asst. Teachers through Notification dated 24/11/2008. The C.B.I. rightly did not consider these claims. Such claims have been rejected by this Committee also.' 21. This Court is also inclined to accept the submissions of the respondents that there exist distinct causes of action and clubbing of the petitioners in one petition and further seeking to make a distinction of 46 petitioners who are age barred, from the total 66 petitioners, without indicating the names of those petitioners, has surely disabled the writ petition. 22. As observed earlier there is nothing left for consideration by this Court as all the issues have already been discussed and dealt with. To reconsider the matter on the pleadings of the writ petitioners herein would therefore, amount to going behind the orders of the Division Bench which is impermissible, as the liberty so granted to the petitioners is circumscribed by the orders dated 02.11.2017 and 22.09.2020 passed in WA No. 52 of 2011 and in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020 respectively. 23. To reconsider the matter on the pleadings of the writ petitioners herein would therefore, amount to going behind the orders of the Division Bench which is impermissible, as the liberty so granted to the petitioners is circumscribed by the orders dated 02.11.2017 and 22.09.2020 passed in WA No. 52 of 2011 and in WP(C) No. 195 of 2020 respectively. 23. The judgment as placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners on the point of res judicata is found to be not applicable, as the instant case, stands completely on a different footing, both in facts and law. On the point of ratio decidendi, the distinction as sought to be made out by the learned senior counsel by placing reliance on the decision of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Utility Users Welfare (supra) will also be of no assistance, as Para-2 of the judgment dated 02.11.2017, is clear and categorical in its application to the tainted candidates. 24. In view of the conclusion arrived at above, the instant writ petition deserves no further consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed. 25. No order as to costs.