1. The petitioners, 34 in number, who were the candidates in the selection process taken up by the respondents for the post of Staff Nurse and",,
appeared in the written examination held on 07.10.2017 but could not secure the minimum qualifying marks of 50%, have filed this writ petition",,
while stating the grievance that the respondents had fixed the same qualifying marks for all the candidates and that has worked to their prejudice as,,
they belong to the Scheduled Tribe category; and, therefore, mandamus be issued to the respondents to relax the minimum qualifying marks and to",,
allow them to participate in the personal interview.,,
2. The recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse by the Director of Health Services, Meghalaya, had been a subject of litigation in the past in this",,
Court and the present selection process has, in fact, been undertaken by the respondents after the observations and directions of this Court in the",,
earlier round of litigation. Therefore, a brief reference to the background aspects is necessary for effectual determination of the issues raised in this",,
petition.,,
BACKGROUND ASPECTS,,
3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The Director of Health Services (MI), Shillong, earlier invited applications from",,
the eligible non-bonded candidates for the posts of Staff Nurse by way of an advertisement dated 11.01.2013 that read as under:-,,
Advertisement The Director of Health Services (MI) Meghalaya, Shillong invites application from eligible non-bonded candidates",,
who are bonafide citizens of India for the posts of Staff Nurse.,,
1. No. of Post - 180(tentative),,
2. Qualification - Possessing General,,
Nursing and Midwifery Certificate/P.G. Diploma In Nursing/B.Sc Nursing from recognized Institution/University & registered under,,
Meghalaya Nursing Council.,,
3. Additional - Knowledge of Khasi,Jaintia & Garo languages",,
4. Age - 18 to 27 yrs. Upper age Limit relaxable by 5 yrs in case of SC/ST Candidates,,
5. Scale of Pay - Rs.11300-280-13260-EB- 360-16500-500-22000/-,,
Last date to submit the application form is 15th February, 2013 date of interview to be notified later.",,
There shall be reservation in favour of candidate belonging to SC/ST in accordance with the reservation Policy of Government.,,
The application form to be submitted to the Office of the undersigned.,,
Sd/-,,
Director of Health Services(MI),,
Meghalaya, Shillong.""",,
4. About 811 persons applied in response to the advertisement aforesaid but in the written examination conducted on 10.08.2013, only 15",,
candidates could secure 50% marks. Before declaration of the result of written examination, the Departmental Recruitment Committee deliberated",,
over the issue of lowering the qualifying marks or giving grace marks to the candidates and the Committee decided that 20 grace marks be given to,,
all the candidates as per the Health Minister''s advice.,,
5. It had appeared in the earlier round of litigation that such proposal for extending grace marks fell in the public domain and certain questions were,,
raised on the rationale and fairness of the procedure so adopted whereupon, the Government proceeded to constitute yet another Committee to",,
enquire into the matter. This Committee, after scrutinising all the necessary papers and tabulation sheets, made certain observations in the meeting",,
dated 07.02.2014 and, thereafter, resolved on 18.02.2014 to recommend re-advertisement and conducting of fresh examination. The resolution of",,
the Committee in that regard, as noticed by this Court in the order dated 24.08.2017 passed in WA No.46 of 2017, could be reproduced as",,
under:-,,
The Committee again met on the scheduled date, i.e. 18th February, 2014 at 10:30 am in the office chamber of the DHS(MI),",,
Shillong. After a detailed and threadbare discussion the following decisions were arrived at :-,,
1. The question papers set for the examination appears to be very tough and hence perhaps the very large number of unsuccessful,,
candidates.,,
2. The Committee therefore suggests for re-advertisement of the posts of GNM and to conduct fresh examination (written &,,
personal interview).,,
3. The Examination Board to be headed by the DHS(MI). Question papers to be set and decided by the Recruitment Committee and,,
results will be based on the total qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in the examinations so conducted.""",,
6. Thereafter, the matter was examined by the Government on 19.08.2014 in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Minister, Incharge",,
Health and Family Welfare; and the decisions were taken in relation to the recruitment in question as follows:-,,
1. The written examination conducted earlier stands null and void. The Administrative Department to convey necessary orders to the",,
Directorate.,,
2. The proposal submitted by the Directorate for re-advertisement of the posts, now stands at 245 (two hundred and forty five),",,
stands approved. The Directorate to submit the revised Draft Advertisement with special reference to :,,
(a) The Written Examination held earlier (10th August, 2013) stands null and void.",,
(b) The over-aged candidate(s) who had appeared for the Written Examination earlier (now null and void) to be,,
considered/condoned.)""",,
7. While questioning the decision aforesaid, some of the candidates approached this Court while asserting that they had admittedly secured more",,
than 50% marks in the written examination without taking the benefit of 20 grace marks and were standing on their own merit and hence, their",,
cases ought to have been segregated from the other candidates who had failed to secure the requisite qualifying marks. After examining the matter,",,
the Single Judge of this Court found that the advertisement in question was defective and ambiguous where syllabus was not indicated; reservation,,
was not specified; and bench-marks for reserved classes were also not mentioned. Therefore, the Single Judge quashed the entire selection",,
process and directed the Government to call for fresh examination while extending the age relaxation to the candidates who had earlier appeared in,,
the examination. Aggrieved, the said writ petitioners preferred the said intra-court appeal (WA No.46 of 2017) with the submissions that they",,
being the candidates securing qualifying marks, could not have been clubbed as a class with other candidates who had failed to secure such",,
qualifying marks; and they ought to have been extended the fruits of their labour and merit standing. The appeal was opposed on behalf of the,,
Government with the submissions that a conscious decision was taken to scrap the entire process and to issue the advertisement afresh so as to,,
ensure that the selection does take place in accordance with the rules of reasonableness and fair play.,,
8. After examining the provisions contained in the Meghalaya Nursing Service Rules, 2008 [''the Rules of 2008''], the Division Bench of this Court",,
observed that the selection process in question was carried out in a rather irresponsible manner by all the concerned in the Directorate of Health,,
Services where the advertisement in question even did not indicate if the selection would be on the basis of written examination and/or interview. It,,
was also noticed that the syllabus for written examination was neither specified nor notified to the candidates. Another factor was noticed that,,
though the respondents suggested that the minimum qualifying marks were 50% but this fact was also never notified to the candidates. Having,,
regard to several such shortcomings, the Division Bench held that the process in question did not conform to the requirements of reasonableness",,
and could not have been countenanced.,,
9. Having regard to the circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court, even while not interfering with the Government''s decision to scrap the",,
process, issued further directions that the fresh selection process shall be taken up in accordance with law and shall be concluded at the earliest",,
and, in any case, before 31.10.2017. The Division Bench, inter alia, observed and directed as under:-",,
The flaws and faults noticed in this matter had all been of the making of the Directorate of Health Services of the Government of",,
Meghalaya and none else. We are clearly of the view that the persons dealing with public offices like the Directorate of Health,,
Services cannot, with impunity, create a situation where the recruitment process is not taken to its logical conclusion with fair",,
recruitment process giving equal and reasonable opportunity to all. Though other aspects of the deficiencies on the part of the,,
Government shall be examined in the said PIL petition pending in this Court, but for the present purpose, we deem it necessary to",,
observe that the faults and shortcomings in this matter had only been of the making of the authorities concerned who were entrusted,,
with the task of conducting the recruitment process and who failed to conduct the process in an appropriate manner. Even while we,,
are not interfering with the decision of the Government scrapping the process in question, it is hereby directed that an appropriate",,
inquiry shall be held in relation to all the persons who were entrusted with the recruitment process in question and who failed to carry,,
out the necessary tasks in accordance with law. At the same time, it is also required of the Government to take up the process of",,
recruitment afresh immediately. For that matter, mere age relaxation to the candidates who had already appeared is not sufficient. In",,
our view, all the candidates who had earlier applied ought to be treated to be the applicants for the recruitment process to be taken",,
up afresh without the necessity of their filing any fresh application. Of course, if any candidate who had earlier applied and now seeks",,
to withdraw his candidature, he/she may be permitted to do so and need not be included in the fresh process.",,
Apart from the requirements aforesaid, it is also directed that the fresh recruitment process ought to be taken up at the earliest and the",,
fresh advertisement ought to be issued within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment while specifying,,
the syllabus for examination as also the minimum pass marks as also the marks for interviews.,,
While concluding on this matter, we also deem it appropriate to make it clear that even while we find no ground to grant relief to the",,
appellants and this appeal is required to be dismissed but we are not making any comment on various other observations made in the,,
order by the learned Single Judge and would leave it open for the Government to take appropriate steps, of course, in accordance",,
with law. It would be expected of the Government to complete the entire process related with this appeal at the earliest and in any,,
case, before 31.10.2017.",,
A copy of this order be placed on the file of PIL No.3 of 2016. With the observations foregoing, this appeal stands dismissed. No",,
costs.""",,
10. It is also noticed that an application was filed on behalf of the Government, being MC(WA) No.61 of 2017, pointing out, inter alia, the fact",,
that a large number of candidates secured pass marks and hence, the interviews were required to be fixed even beyond 31.10.2017. Having",,
regard to the circumstances, this Court has enlarged the time to complete the entire process until 11.12.2017.",,
FRESH SELECTION PROCESS & CASE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONERS,,
11. After the specific directions of this Court, the Director of Health Services issued a comprehensive advertisement specifying the syllabus as also",,
the minimum and maximum qualifying marks in the written examination as also in the personal interview apart from the eligibility conditions. This,,
fresh advertisement, said to have been published on 06.09.2017, reads as under:-",,
ADVERTISEMENT",,
The Director of Health Services (MI), Meghalaya, Shillong invites application (in Standard Form of Application) from eligible",,
candidates who are bonafide citizens of India to the post of Staff Nurse.,,
1. No. of Posts - 436 (Four Hundred Thirty Six),,
2. Minimum Qualification - General Nursing & Midwifery (GNM)/B.Sc Nursing from Recognized Institution by Indian Nursing,,
Sl.No.,SUBJECTS,MARKS
1,Anatomy & Physiology,10 Marks
2,Nutrition,10 Marks
3,Nursing Foundation,10 Marks
4,Microbiology,10 Marks
5,Medical & Surgical Nursing,10 Marks
6,Child Health Nursing,10 Marks
7,Mental health Nursing,10 Marks
8,Community Health Nursing,10 Marks
9,Midwifery,10 Marks
10,Nursing Administration,10 Marks
reservation for Khasi and Jaintia candidates while leaving only 15% as ''Open'' category. The petitioners submit that they had done fairly well in the,,
written examination but ""for the reasons best known to the authorities"", they could not secure the qualifying marks in the examination.",,
13. Having failed to secure the requisite qualifying marks of 50%, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition with the",,
submissions that treating the Backward Communities and Tribes as equal to the other candidates of Open category is violative of Article 14 of the,,
Constitution of India. It is submitted that by not providing for lower qualifying marks for the candidates like the petitioners, the selection process as",,
taken up by the respondents cannot be said to be fair and justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the,,
decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr Preeti Srivastava and Another v. State of M.P. and others: (1999) 7 SCC 120; Union,,
of India and others v. S Vinodh Kumar and others : (2007) 8 SCC 100 and Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth GS Medical College and",,
Others :(1990) 3 SCC 130. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also refer to the decision in the case of Raj Kumar and others v. Shakti,,
Raj and others:(1997) 9 SCC 527 to submit that merely for having appeared in the written examination, the petitioners are not debarred from",,
questioning the selection process, particularly when it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.",,
14. The submissions aforementioned are countered by the learned counsel for the respondents with the contentions that the petitioners, who had",,
consciously appeared in the written examination without any protest and dispute, are not entitled to turn around and to challenge the qualifying",,
marks as prescribed. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Trivedi,,
Himanshu Ghanshyambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn and others: (2007) 8 SCC 644.,,
THE CLAIM FOR LOWERING THE QUALIFYING MARKS IS BEREFT OF SUBSTANCE,,
15. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, this Court has no hesitation in finding that this",,
writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed with costs.,,
16. It remains trite that a candidate, having taken chance to appear in the written examination and/or interview and having remained unsuccessful,",,
cannot turn around later and challenge the method of selection as being illegal; the principles of estoppel operate heavily and squarely against any,,
such claim by any such candidate after having remained unsuccessful. The case of Raj Kumar and others (supra) as referred by learned counsel for,,
the petitioners stand at an entirely different footing where the Supreme Court found that the entire process was arbitrary and contrary to the,,
requirements of the Rules. In the given circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under:-",,
16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the",,
examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso",,
to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was,,
constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava",,
Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a",,
chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the",,
Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case,",,
the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so",,
also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the,,
selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the",,
facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee",,
as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.""",,
17. The principles remain indisputable that a candidate, having taken a calculated chance and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn around",,
later and challenge the method of selection, as indicated in a three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash",,
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others : 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, as under:-",,
24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for",,
the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination.,,
The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship,,
to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the district of Kanpur,,
also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.""",,
(underlining supplied for emphasis).,,
18. The decision aforesaid came for further exposition in the case of Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others : (1995) 3 SCC 486,",,
wherein the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms as under:-,,
9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates",,
being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral",,
interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members,,
concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance,,
to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their,,
combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a",,
calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and",,
subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash,,
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared,,
at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination,",,
the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.""",,
(underlining supplied for emphasis).,,
19. In the decision relied upon by the learned Government Advocate, in Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court",,
has reiterated these principles while holding that a candidate who remained unsuccessful in examination is not entitled to challenge the selection list,,
and appointment of the candidates in the following:-,,
16. As noted hereinearlier, Respondents 2 and 3 who had filed the writ petition before the High Court, challenging the appointment",,
of the appellant were themselves unsuccessful in the examination, even though they claimed that they had passed the written",,
examination but failed in the interview. Since the names of Respondents 2 and 3, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court,",,
did not figure in the merit list, in our view, it was not open to them to challenge the said selection list and the appointment of the",,
appellant before the High Court.""",,
(underlining supplied for emphasis).,,
20. The facts of the present case leave nothing to doubt that immediately upon issuance of the advertisement in question, the petitioners were",,
conscious of the fact that there would be a written examination of 100 marks; and the minimum qualifying marks of such a written examination,,
there would be 50; and further that such minimum marks were uniformly applicable for all categories of candidates. The petitioners obviously took,,
a calculated chance and appeared in the written examination and only after having remained unsuccessful, now seek to claim reduction of minimum",,
qualifying marks. The claim as sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners could only be rejected as being an afterthought, apart from being",,
wholly baseless and rather misconceived.,,
21. Apart that the principles of estoppel operate heavily against the petitioners, even on merits, we find the submissions on behalf of the petitioners",,
totally baseless particularly in the given set up of the reservations in the State of Meghalaya. The observations of the Supreme Court in Marri,,
Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) on the basics that equality is a dynamic concept of reality where unequals are not to be treated by identical,,
standards are neither of any dispute nor of any debate. However, the question is as to whether on such principles, the minimum qualifying marks",,
for the post of Staff Nurse are required to be reduced for any particular category of candidate who answers to the description of ""Reserved",,
Category""?",,
22. It is not the case of the petitioners that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in any manner offends the requirements of the Rules 2008.,,
In the referred decision by the counsel for the petitioners, we are unable to find if the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down any proposition that",,
invariably there has to be a prescription of lower qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates. In Dr Preeti Srivastava?s case, the",,
observations had essentially been to indicate that even when any reduction of pass marks is provided for any particular category, such reduction",,
cannot be taken to a reasonable level. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:-",,
62. ....... To conclude :",,
*** *** ***,,
3. Whether lower minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates can be prescribed at the postgraduate level of,,
medical education is a question which must be decided by the Medical Council of India since it affects the standards of postgraduate,,
medical education. Even if minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved category candidates, there cannot be a wide",,
disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the,,
general category candidates at this level. The percentage of 20% for the reserved category and 45% for the general category is not,,
permissible under Article 15(4), the same being unreasonable at the postgraduate level and contrary to the public interest.""",,
23. The counsel for the petitioners has referred to a partially dissenting opinion in the said decision but even those observations do not make out a,,
case that invariably, there has to be a reduction of the pass marks for the reserved categories. The referred observations read as under:-",,
78. I, however, respectfully agree to that part of Conclusion 3 which states that there cannot be a wide disparity between the",,
minimum qualifying marks for reserved category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for general category candidates at this,,
level. I also respectfully agree that there cannot be dilution of minimum qualifying marks for such reserved category candidates up to,,
almost a vanishing point. The dilution can be only up to a reasonable extent with a rock bottom, below which such dilution would not",,
be permissible as demonstrated hereinafter in this judgment. In my view, maximum dilution can be up to 50% of the minimum",,
qualifying marks prescribed for the general category candidates. On that basis if 45% passing marks are prescribed for general,,
category, permissible dilution can then go up to 22 ?% (50% of 45%). Any dilution below this rock bottom would not be permissible",,
under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.""",,
24. The observations in the case of Union of India v. S Vinodh Kumar (supra), in our view, are rather against the claim sought to be made by the",,
petitioners where the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that it is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks;,,
and the Court while exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The Supreme Court has said:-,,
10. It may be true that the cut-off marks at 71 had been fixed for unreserved candidates on the basis that marks obtained by the last candidate,",,
i.e. 240th candidate, calculated at 50% of the 480 candidates, but concededly 56 marks were fixed for Other Backward Classes candidates and",,
20 marks were fixed for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Only because the cut-off marks at 71 had been fixed on the basis of,,
the aforementioned criteria, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that no cut-off mark had been fixed. The fact that the Railway",,
Administration intended to fix the cut-off mark for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in respect of the general category as also reserved,,
category candidates is evident from the fact that different cut-off marks were fixed for different categories of candidates. We are, therefore, unable",,
to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the cut-off marks fixed was wholly arbitrary so as to offend the principles of equality enshrined,,
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The power of the employer to fix the cut-off marks is neither denied nor disputed. If the cut-off marks,,
was fixed on a rational basis, no exception thereto can be taken.",,
11. The respondents herein had approached the Tribunal in the year 2000. The Tribunal directed the appellants to consider this case of lowering of,,
the cut-off marks. An inference, therefore, can be drawn from the aforementioned fact that the main prayer of the respondents was that the cut-off",,
marks should be lowered. The appellants admittedly did not agree to the said proposal. The action of the appellants impugned before the Tribunal,,
must, therefore, be considered from the viewpoint as to whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the",,
appellant. Once it is held that the appellants had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it",,
could not be directed to lower the same. It is trite that it is for the employer or the expert body to determine the cut-off marks. The court while,,
exercising its power of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdiction of the court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-off",,
marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question. It is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different,,
categories of candidates. (See Banking Service Recruitment Board v. V. Ramalingam.)""",,
(underlining supplied for emphasis).,,
25. Thus, even if it may be held permissible that in a particular selection process, there could be different qualifying marks, it is difficult to find any",,
principle that in every selection, the qualifying marks have to be different for different categories.",,
26. It is also noteworthy that in the context of the State of Meghalaya and the scheme of reservation as provided in the advertisement in question,",,
40% vacancies are reserved for Khasi and Jaintia candidates and 40% for Garo candidates and another 5% for other SC/ST category. Thus, the",,
reservation, in effect, stand at a whopping 85% and the so-called ''Open'' category is reduced to a meagre 15%. We refrain from making any",,
other comment in this regard as the other issues relating to the reservation policy are pending consideration in other litigation but, for the present",,
purpose, suffice it to observe that looking to the quantum of reservation provided, it would be rather a travesty of justice if the qualifying marks are",,
also reduced for the reserved category candidates. It is further noteworthy, as pointed out before the Court in MC (WA) No. 61 of 2017, that",,
2476 candidates appeared in the selection process in question and as many as 1347 were able to secure 50% qualifying marks. The post in,,
question is that of Staff Nurse, directly related with the health care services in the State. If the petitioners could not secure even 50% marks in the",,
written examination and are, therefore, not included in the process of interview, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality or",,
unfairness.,,
CONCLUSION,,
27. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is required to be dismissed. Though, ordinarily, while dismissing the writ petition in",,
the matters of employment, we may not saddle the candidate with costs but the present one is a matter where the petitioners have appeared in the",,
written examination without any demur and after having been unsuccessful, have chosen to approach this Court on entirely baseless premise. Thus,",,
we find it rather imperative that the petitioners be saddled with costs. However, in the circumstances, we impose costs only of Rs.500/- (Rupees",,
Five hundred) on each of these 34 petitioners.,,
28. Accordingly, this petition is, dismissed with total costs quantified at Rs.17,000/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand).",,
29. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of costs within 30 days from today with the District Legal Services Authority, West Garo Hills, Tura",,
and if they fail to deposit the amount of costs, it shall be required of the Deputy Commissioner, West Garo Hills, Tura, to effect the recovery of this",,
amount of costs. After recovery/deposit of the amount, the same may be utilised by the District Legal Services Authority, West Garo Hills, Tura",,
for the purposes of legal awareness.,,
