RIMBITHA M. MARAK vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. Advocate - N.G. SHYLLA, SR. GA MEGHALAYA, , I LYNGWA,T YANGI B, AAG — WP(C)/50/2026

Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

Next hearing 17-Apr-2026

CNR: MLHC010001182026

Filing Number

WP(C)/94/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/50/2026

Registration Date

11-Feb-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WRIT PETITION RELATING TO STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEES ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Other Service matters ( 10040 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RIMBITHA M. MARAK

    Adv. P.T. SANGMA,J.T. SANGMA,J.T. SANGMA, G. CH MARAK,J.T. SANGMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. Advocate - N.G. SHYLLA, SR. GA (Government Advocate) MEGHALAYA, , I LYNGWA,T YANGI B, AAG

Case History

  1. 17-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. ThangkhiewView PDF

    Summary: The case was adjourned to 17-04-2026 for filing of affidavits and appearance of Respondent No. 4. The court conditionally allowed the continuation of Respondent No. 4's appointment, but made it subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, noting that she does not meet NCTE qualification norms (obtaining less than 45% marks against the required threshold). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. ThangkhiewView PDF

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. ThangkhiewView PDF

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/50/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The case was adjourned to 17-04-2026 for filing of affidavits and appearance of Respondent No. 4. The court conditionally allowed the continuation of Respondent No. 4's appointment, but made it subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, noting that she does not meet NCTE qualification norms (obtaining less than 45% marks against the required threshold). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case