ETI BALA BARMAN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-04-02. ETI BALA BARMAN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 12 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 232 of 2023 Date of Decision: 02. 04. 2026 Smti. Eti Bala Barman, W/o Shri. Ripon Kumar Modak, R/o Modakpara, PS & PO Mahendraganj, South West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. …….. Petitioner - Vs- 1. State of Meghalaya represented by The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. The District School Education Officer, South West Garo Hills District, Ampati. 4. The Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, South West Garo Hills District, Ampati. 5. The School Managing Committee, Melapara Non-Govt LP School, Mahendraganj, South West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya, represented by its President/Secretary. ……… Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA. for R 1-4. Mr. S. W. Sangma, Adv. vice Mr. A. H.
Hazarika, Adv. for R 5. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed before this Court with a prayer for impleadment of the applicant therein, who is said to be the present incumbent, who is occupying the post of the petitioner on her service being terminated. 2. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the applicant has brought on record copies of resolution dated 05. 07. 2023, by which the appointment of the said applicant has been affected, and the service of the petitioner being terminated. The said resolution is not known to the petitioner, and the same was also not brought by the relevant respondents through their counter affidavits.
Accordingly, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, so as to enable the petitioner to incorporate the new facts in a fresh petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents have no objection to the prayer made. 4. Accordingly, as prayed for, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty sought for allowed. Judge Signature Not Verified 3 Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026. 04. 02 18:17:57 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.