Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010126332025 2025:GAU-AS:14486 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1278/2025 NAYANMONI PAMEGAM W/O MADHAB DAS R/O VILL PACHONIA PS JOGIGHOPA PO PACHONIA DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN783382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Smt. Nayanmoni Pamegam, has Page No.# 2/6 prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Vigilance Police Station FIR no. 13/2025 under Section 120B/406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC r/w Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the investigating agency has mixed up the categories of ST Plains and ST Hills and that the present petitioner has been rightly selected and against the right category. Pursuant to grant of interim, her statement has also been recorded. The learned counsel draws attention of the court to the fact that one writ petition filed challenging the anomalies was withdrawn by the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations with regard to the present petitioner and that her custodial examination may not be necessary at this stage. It is submitted by the learned counsel that she should be allowed to go on anticipatory bail by making her interim absolute and that the same would not prejudice the investigation. 5. The case diary has been received along with a bail objection in which the I/O has strongly opposed the grant of bail. 6. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CM Vigilance Cell. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that with regard to the present petitioner, as much as 25 marks were added without any signature and that she has been a beneficiary of the manipulated selection process and that therefore, her complicity in the alleged offence also emerges from the investigation. As the evaluation and the selection process was sent for an examination by an expert committee of academicians from Gauhati Page No.# 3/6 University who returned findings indicating both procedural flaws and substantive flaws which are enumerated as herein below – i) Putting name and address of candidates on the top sheet of the answer sheet is not in keeping with the standard examination procedure and compromised confidentiality. Evaluators of the answer scripts have not put his or her signature on the scripts after evaluation which is a serious lapse. No scrutiny of answer scripts was conducted after evaluation of the scripts as per the standard practice. ii) The total marks obtained by the candidates were put on the back cover page of the answer scripts in pencil in many cases which is not acceptable. iii) Each page of the evaluation sheet containing marks awarded by a Panel Member in viva-voice examination was not signed as per standard practice. 7. As already mentioned above, the team of experts comprising academicians from Gauhati University also found the following substantial flaws in the selection process - a) Many instances of overwriting on the marks awarded for a particular question in answer scripts of the written test were noted which were not duly authenticated by initials of the evaluator. b) Casting errors were noted in a few cases which have been highlighted in tabulation sheet. c) Some instances of overwriting were found which have been duly reported. d) Large number of instances of overwriting on the marks awarded to candidates in the viva-voice examination were noted which were not duly Page No.# 4/6 authenticated by initials of the concerned member of the selection committee. e) These were totaling errors in viva-voice examination marks of a few candidates. f) Discrepancies were found in marks entered in the compilation sheet for written test as well as viva-voice examination. g) Even though a selection committee for selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Tourism Information Officer was constituted by Government of Assam wide Notification No. TSM/144/2001/ Pt.I/62 dated February 9, 2010, committee of experts did not come across any documents signed by all the members of the selection committee on the basis of which the results were declared by the Director of Tourism, vide notice number DT-A/1112/07 dated 17.02.2011. And the committee opines that standard best practice has not been followed. 8. On the basis of the scrutiny, it was revealed that the name of the present petitioner, Nayanmoni Pamegam, should not have figured anywhere in the list of successful candidates but she was selected by the selection committee based on criteria best known to them. It is stated by the I/O that the investigation revealed that on the basis of a comprehensive list of candidates based on descending marks obtained by the candidates, it was found that one Bathu Khungur Boro, belonging to ST Plains category, secured 109.25 marks. 9. While the present petitioner, Nayanmoni Pamegam, scored only 93.75 marks. However, the same Bathu Khungur Boro was not selected but the present petitioner, Nayanmoni Pamegam, was selected over a candidate who was more deserving and secured more marks in the final selection. It is stated that the investigation also revealed that as many as seven ST Plains category Page No.# 5/6 candidates secured higher marks than the present petitioner but yet were denied selection. 10. It is stated that having secured her selection by manipulated and unlawful methods, she not only got selected but has been drawing salaries upon public funds for so many years and even availed promotions, thereby causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. It is stated that there are materials to indicate that the present petitioner conspired with the officials of the selection board including the Director to fraudulently secure her appointment. It is contended that custodial examination of such an accused is necessary and that granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would adversely affect the investigation. 11. I have considered the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsels on both the sides. If the investigation materials with regard to the present petitioner are taken at face value, it clearly indicates that she was beneficiary of manipulation in her favour. Candidates securing more marks than her in the grand total were not selected and she was selected over such deserving candidates in violation of law. 12. I find force in the contention of the I/O and the learned Special P.P. that the complicity of the present petitioner emerges together with the main prime accused in securing her selection by manipulation. In the given facts and circumstances, I also find force in the contention of the I/O that granting of bail could be detrimental to the investigation. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2025 is hereby vacated and the instant petition for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage. Page No.# 6/6 13. Return back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant