Aynal Haque vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

The writ petitioner by this application is seeking a mandamus to include his name in the list of sanctioned post of teachers of Beparipara S.S.A. L.P School, to allow him to take charge of the post Head Teacher of the said school and to order for removal of the private respondent No. 6, from the post of sanctioned teacher who he alleges, is continuing in service on the strength of fake certificates. The case as put up is that the Managing Committee of the School by Resolution dated 03.11.2016, had resolved to promote the petitioner to the post of head teacher in place of one Shri. Saidul Miah (Respondent No. 5), which was also duly approved by the Competent Authority, but however, he was not permitted to take charge of the said post. The other grievance of the petitioner is that, though he was more eligible to be considered for appointment to a sanctioned post having attained the essential qualifications at an earlier point of time, he was not accommodated against the same and instead respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed against the sanctioned posts. Further grievance is that, respondent No. 6 by submission of fake certificates continues to hold on to his post of Teacher, which is a sanctioned post and that as there has been no response to his representations and complaints in this regard, has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents No. 5 and 6, were appointed together on 29.01.2002, on the recommendation of the Managing Committee as Lower Primary School Teachers in Beparipara L.P School, on a lump sum salary of Rs.3000/- (Three Thousand Rupees only) per month. It is further submitted that after his appointment in the year 2005, the writ petitioner attained further qualification of (10+2) HSSLC pass, and is now pursuing D.El.Ed. from the National Institute of Open Schooling, and as such, is well qualified to hold the post of L.P. School teacher.

Learned counsel submits that vide a Resolution dated 03.11.2016 of the Managing Committee, the petitioner was promoted and asked to take charge as Head Teacher of the School from Shri. Saidul Miah, the respondent No. 5, who by another Resolution in the same meeting itself, was demoted from the said post of Head Teacher for allegedly mis-appropriating the Mid-Day Meal Scheme amount, taking bribe as well as being inattentive in school. Learned counsel submits that the said Resolution was forwarded to the District Mission Co-ordinator who approved the same, but however, the petitioner till date has not been permitted or allowed to take over as Head Teacher.

The learned counsel then submits that apart from the above, the respondent No. 6, who is occupying a sanctioned post and appointed together with the petitioner, is incompetent to hold the same as it appears he was appointed on the basis of fake (10+2) certificates dated 15.05.2012. The learned counsel submits that the certificates were obtained from an institution which he alleges is fake, as it has been never set up or recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development as per the R.T.I reply received by the petitioner. He further submits that, the said respondent No. 6, in spite of a representation for his removal is still continuing as Assistant Teacher in the school. As such, the learned counsel prays that directions be issued that the petitioner be considered for appointment to a sanctioned post, be allowed to hold the post of Head Teacher and that further the respondent No. 6 be removed from the post of Assistant Teacher of Beparipara S.S.A. L.P School.

Mr. H. Kharmih, learned State counsel for the respondents No. 1-3 submits that the petitioner was a teacher in Beparipara L.P. School in 2007, before the school was under S.S.A. and that once the school was brought under S.S.A. in 2007, a fresh Managing Committee was constituted as per the norms and respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed in the two S.S.A. sanctioned posts. Learned counsel in support of this submission has referred to orders both dated 27.02.2007 (Annexure - A and C to affidavit) which reflect that respondents No. 5 and 6 were duly appointed as such. He also submits that the petitioner never raised any grievance at that stage or when the data for 2013-2014 and 2016-2017 showing respondents No. 5 and 6 as sanctioned post teachers and the petitioner as a teacher appointed by the Managing Committee was published. He further submits that the petitioner is therefore estopped at this juncture from raising any grievance. With regard to the Resolution, it is submitted that the same was motivated by other considerations, inasmuch as, the same was passed on 03.11.2016, just before the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee on 06.11.2016, and on a mistaken premise the then District Mission Co-ordinator had approved the said Resolution without verifying the facts. Moreover, he submits the respondent No. 5 before the Resolution was passed for his removal as Head Teacher, was never given an opportunity to defend himself, but even leaving this aspect aside, the petitioner could not have occupied the post of a Head Teacher as he was a non-sanctioned teacher.

With regard to the prayer for removal of respondent No. 6, learned counsel submits that the enquiry which was instituted with regard to the alleged fake certificate was inconclusive as per enquiry conducted on 19.07.2017, by the Joint District Mission Co-ordinator SSA, South West Garo Hills, Ampati (Annexure - 13 to the writ petition) and is of no relevance presently as the respondent No. 6 has also obtained (10+2) certification from the Meghalaya Board of School Education in 2017 securing 55.80%. He therefore submits that, apart from putting up a stale claim, the petitioner on merits has no case, whatsoever, as he was never appointed or considered for appointment against the sanctioned post and has not made out any grounds to merit any interference by this Court.

Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 has also placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the State and has also supported the arguments made by the State counsel. Learned counsel also submits that though the petitioner has objected to the qualification of the respondent No.

6, especially for pursuing a (10+2) certificate in the year 2017, he points out that the petitioner himself has also sought re-qualification in the year 2017 from the Meghalaya Board of School Education and has secured a II Division with 56.20% as is evident from page-20 of Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He therefore states that, the writ petitioner has failed to make out any case and that the writ petition should be dismissed.

Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel in reply and in addition to his earlier submissions, has strongly contended that at the time of initial appointment, he was the only HSSLC passed (10+2) candidate and that respondent No. 5 and 6 were only mere matriculates, when the prescribed minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Lower Primary School Teachers in the State was HSSLC or Class XII passed or its equivalent. Learned counsel submits that it is not understood on what basis the name of respondent No. 6 was put against a sanctioned post, when he should have been HSSLC qualified at the time of appointment. He lastly submits that, if in the year 2007 itself the two teachers were appointed against the sanctioned posts when they were not qualified, the same cannot be overlooked and they are liable to be removed from the category of sanctioned post teacher.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and I have given my due consideration to the facts as placed and also to the materials on record. A pertinent point that is noted, is that the writ petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2018, that is 11 years after the appointment of the respondents No. 5 and 6 in Beparipara School in the year 2007 as sanctioned teachers. From a perusal of the materials on records, it appears that the writ petitioner started agitating for his perceived right only after the Resolution dated 03.11.2016 had been passed, wherein it was resolved to promote him to the post of Head Teacher. This was followed by his quest to get respondent No. 6 removed for allegedly possessing fake certificates which however, on enquiry as noted earlier, did not yield any fruit. Even the Resolution on which the petitioner has strongly relied upon apart from being deprecated by the State respondents themselves was never implemented and as submitted by the respondents, the petitioner could not have held the post of Head Teacher as he was occupying a non-sanctioned post.

The grounds raised as to the respondent No. 6 not possessing the required qualifications at the time of appointment has also no legs to stand on, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 6 as on today is qualified to occupy the post. Challenge if any, should have been made by the petitioner 11 years ago and not at this late stage, which if entertained will unsettle a settled position. From the facts and circumstances, it can be clearly seen that the petitioner became active only after the Resolution dated 03.11.2016, was passed by the Managing Committee and it seems was satisfied as to his situation in employment all these years.

In this view of the matter, no sufficient grounds have been made out to show that the petitioner has any subsisting right or that he has been deprived of his rights in any manner and as such, the writ application fails and accordingly stands dismissed.