Meghalaya HC quashes charges against Ampareen Lyngdoh, two others in 17-year-old teachers’ recruitment case

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaSeptember 4, 2025

After 17 long years, the Meghalaya High Court has quashed charges against former Education Minister Ampareen Lyngdoh, former Director of Elementary and Mass Education J.D. Sangma, and former Deputy Director Ameka I. Lyngdoh in connection with the alleged irregularities in the 2008 lower primary school assistant teachers’ recruitment process.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered a case in 2018 based on an FIR lodged in 2011, alleging that the accused had conspired to manipulate score sheets and favor certain candidates. The selection process was concerned with five centres or Sub-Divisions: Shillong, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre.

The CBI filed a chargesheet in 2020, and the Special Judge (CBI) dismissed the accused’s applications for discharge in 2022.

“At the rate it is proceeding, examination of all witnesses might take up the entirety of the remaining life of the accused. Therefore, exercising power under Section 227 of the Code read with Section 482, especially the part which deals with the power of the court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, I set aside the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2022 passed in Special (CBI) Case No. 2 of 2020 by the learned Special Judge (CBI), East Khasi Hills district, Shillong. The charges against the accused A1, A2 and A3 are quashed. The entire criminal proceedings are hereby quashed. Each of the accused 1, 2 and 3 are hereby discharged. Crl. Petn. Nos. 36 of 2023, 37 of 2023, 70 and 71 of 2023 are allowed,” the bench headed by Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji said in its judgment passed on Thursday.

The court’s decision was based on the prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

The bench observed that the three documents showing various levels in tabulation of results were signed by the same five persons, raising doubts about manipulation.

It said that the alleged slips purportedly directing alteration of marks were not conclusive evidence and could have multiple purposes.

The bench also noted that there was no document showing interpolation or application of white ink to erase marks.

“Now, the case of the prosecution is that A1, A2 and A3 were in conspiracy, connivance and collaboration with one another. They had manipulated the score sheets, thereby displacing the successful candidates by candidates of their choice. The original score sheets were different.

White ink was used to erase the marks and substitute them by higher or lower marks as the case may be to accommodate the preferred candidates and to remove the undesirable ones.

Furthermore, they had a charge against accused No. 1 (Ampareen Lyngdoh) that using her influence as minister she had furnished slips to the officers preparing the tabulation sheets directing alteration of marks. First of all, the three documents showing various levels in tabulation of results were signed by the self-same five persons. Secondly, the said slips which had been produced as evidence could not by themselves suggest any specific direction for alteration of marks. The originals have not been produced as evidence. No document showing interpolation or any application of white ink for erasing the marks is on record. The said slips which have been produced with some remarks of A1 could be for more than one purpose. There is no further evidence to link those slips with the charge of manipulation of results,” the bench stated.

“Now, applying the principles laid down in the above Supreme Court decisions, if the prima facie case sought to be made out by the prosecution, from the documents, records and other evidence is so weak that a reasonable suspicion of the accused having committed the crime does not arise, the Court on consideration of this evidence is empowered to discharge the accused,” it said, adding, “In this case, the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima facie case from where a reasonable suspicion may arise in the prosecutor or the court of interpolation of the score sheets by the accused or any of them. The case or charges against each of them fall to the ground.”

The bench also noted that the selection process was initiated in 2008, and the case had been pending for over 17 years, causing mental anxiety to the accused. It emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process and securing the ends of justice.

“Under Section 482, this Court has the power to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The selection process is of 2008. About 17 years have rolled by. The first FIR was lodged on 18th July, 2011. Nothing has moved significantly in prosecuting the accused. Only 28 out of 181 witnesses have been examined,” the bench stated.

“Such enormous delay in prosecuting a criminal case is also against the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21, 19 and 14 to lead a peaceful life free of mental anxiety caused by pendency of a criminal proceeding,” it added.