LANOSHA SUTING Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H. Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA for the respondents No. 1-4. Mr. P.N.Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5-15, 18-22, 24, 26-31, 33-84, Mr. S.Wahlang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 23 are present who did not submit anything. Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had qualified for the written examination and thereafter she was called for the typing test and then also called for personal interview. Learned counsel also gave the brief facts of the case, the same is reproduced herein below:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that those candidates who got lesser marks in typing test were appointed leaving behind the petitioner though she secured better marks in typing test. He also raised the question that the entire selection was done in a very mismatch manner.