Clamingstar Nongsiej vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

The facts as set out in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher by the Managing Committee of the Phlangkynshi Upper Primary School on 01.03.2008, and was regularly working therein, and in the year 2012, was also allowed to attend the refresher course conducted by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The grievance as set forth is that in the month of March, 2015, though his services were still retained, no salary was paid by the Managing Committee (Respondent No. 4), and though the writ petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the authorities no substantial action was taken and as such, he is compelled to come before this Court by way of this instant writ application.

Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school is governed by the Meghalaya School Education Act 1981, and as such appointments and any other matters are to be made under the provisions of the said Act. Further, he submits that though the petitioner was discharging his duties on being appointed, he was never given an appointment letter by the respondent No. 4, which he contends has been retained in their possession. He submits that in spite of several representations and due to the indifferent attitude of the respondent No. 4, no relief was forthcoming. He therefore prays that a mandamus be issued to direct the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and further quash the appointment of the respondent No. 5 who was appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2015 issued by the Managing Committee.

Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3, submits that though this matter has been brought to the notice of the respondents, and that the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer (Respondent No. 3) had initiated action by calling upon the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 29th November, 2016 to come before his office so that the matter could be examined, no response was received. This submission is enforced by the statements made in Paras 4 & 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 & 3. He further submits that in the matter of appointment of such teachers, the appointing authority is the school Managing Committee, and only approval is sought from the official respondents.

Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 & 5, at the outset vehemently raised the contention that for the petitioner to agitate for his rights, firstly he must establish where his rights stem from, and in the absence of a tangible appointment order or any proceedings before the Managing Committee to show that he was duly appointed, he cannot claim or agitate for his rights. He further submits that the petitioner was never regularly appointed in the school and in fact, he was just a stopgap arrangement until the advertisement was issued in 2015. He further submits that nothing prevented the petitioner from applying for the said post. As such, there being no violation of any rights as the petitioner was not regularly appointed, the petition is without merit deserves no consideration.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On a bare perusal of the material as placed, it reflects that there is no appointment letter of the petitioner, on which he bases his claim that he was appointed since 2008. However, it is a fact that he has not applied for the post when the advertisement was floated, though the petitioner has contended that he was never aware of the said advertisement. Be that as it may, from the facts as placed, apart from the situation of the petitioner's appointment, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to allow the prayer as made out in the writ petition at this stage. It is also to be noted that there are some complaints against the petitioner affecting him personally, which he has never been given an opportunity to rebut, which in the opinion of this Court has cast a stigma on his character.

Looking into the totality and the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice that the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer be directed to re-examine the matter as initiated by him vide letter dated 29th November, 2016 by calling all the parties concerned in order to address the issue whether the petitioner was paid for the services which he had rendered to the school for the relevant period and further why the remarks as made against him be not expunged and the Managing Committee to issue a clarification in this regard. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order served upon the respondents.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.