Meghalaya HC quashes 17-year-old teacher recruitment case against Ampareen Lyngdoh

The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against three senior officials accused of manipulating the 2008 recruitment process for primary school teachers, citing the prosecution's failure to establish even basic suspicion of wrongdoing after 17 years of legal proceedings.

Chief Justice IP Mukerji on September 4 ordered the complete discharge of cabinet minister Ampareen Lyngdoh, former Director of Elementary and Mass Education JD Sangma, and former Deputy Director Ameka Lyngdoh from all charges related to the controversial teacher selection process.

The case originated from allegations that the trio conspired to alter score sheets and favour certain candidates during recruitment for lower primary school assistant teachers across five centers in Shillong, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered the case in 2018 based on a 2011 complaint.

However, the high court found the prosecution's evidence severely lacking. The court noted that three key documents showing result tabulations bore signatures from the same five individuals, raising questions about the alleged manipulation. Additionally, purported slips directing mark alterations were deemed inconclusive, with no original documents or evidence of white ink usage to erase marks presented in court.

The court emphasised that the alleged evidence slips attributed to Lyngdoh could serve multiple purposes and failed to establish any direct connection to result manipulation. The prosecution could not demonstrate interpolation of score sheets or provide documentary proof of the claimed forgery.

Beyond evidentiary concerns, the court highlighted the unconscionable delay in pursuing the case. Despite 181 witnesses listed, only 28 had been examined after more than a decade of proceedings. The court determined that continuing at the current pace would consume the remaining lifetimes of the accused.

Chief Justice Mukerji invoked constitutional protections, stating that such enormous delays violated the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21, 19 and 14, which guarantee peaceful life free from mental anxiety caused by prolonged criminal proceedings.

The CBI had filed charges in 2020, and a Special CBI Judge had previously rejected discharge applications in 2022. However, the high court found the prosecution's case so fundamentally weak that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity could not be established.

Senior advocate K Paul represented JD Sangma, while Supreme Court lawyer Salman Khurshid appeared for Ampareen Lyngdoh. Former education official A Lyngdoh was represented by TT Diengdoh.