Dimimemon Tariang vs State Of Meghalaya & 5 Ors

The petitioner in the instant writ application has questioned the actions of the respondent School in appointing Respondent No.6 as an Assistant Teacher, who in the opinion of the petitioner has been done without complying with the mandated guidelines enacted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

Ms. C.B. Sawain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, special criteria has been laid down prescribing the qualifications for appointment of teachers in Lower and Upper Primary Schools. She submits that the respondents 3 to 5, had advertised the post of Assistant Teacher at Thangbuli Upper Primary School through a daily newspaper on 12th September, 2013 and that in the said advertisement, the respondents had failed to mention the required qualifications as per the mandated NCTE guidelines. She also submits that against the said advertisement, the petitioner had then written to the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Amlarem Sub-Division (Respondent No. 2) and pointed out the lapses and sought correction. The learned counsel submits that the post was then re-advertised on 29th November, 2013 but the criteria was limited only to those candidates having a degree in B.Sc. with preference in B.Ed. with no other mention of other necessary qualifications. She further submits that in spite of calling attention to the faulty advertisement, the respondent School on the basis of the said advertisement conducted the selection and appointed the candidate from the select list. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had initially approached the Civil Court by way of a Title Suit but withdrew the same, and after withdrawal, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for quashing of the advertisements dated 12th September, 2013 and 29th November, 2013, the selection result dated 1st March, 2014 and the subsequent appointment dated 8th April, 2014. She concludes her submissions by saying that the entire selection being vitiated for non-compliance of the NCTE mandate, the same should be set aside and quashed and the post be re-advertised as per the mandated NCTE norms.

Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondents No. 1 & 2 in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner was neither a candidate nor an aspirant to the post, as such the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection and appointment. He also submits that the prescribed norms as laid down by NCTE have been forwarded to the concerned School by the official respondents which had advertised the post, however, he submits in view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus, this Court need not look into this aspect of the matter as the relief as claimed by the petitioner is inadmissible.

Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 6 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition, and the only connection that the petitioner has with the school is that his cousin is studying in the School, who in no way affected by the claims of the petitioner. He also submits that the Upper Primary School Thangbuli is a private minority School set-up by the Executive Committee of the Thangbuli Village, Amwi Elaka, Amlarem Sub-Division and was brought under the Deficit System of Grant-in-aid in the year 1978 and that the School is functioning as a private minority institution. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 6 was appointed with the due process having been found to be the most suitable. He lastly submits that in view of the grounds and challenges as set forth with regard to the maintainability, no interference is called for and prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances at hand. The undisputed fact that emerges during the hearing is that the writ petitioner, though having genuine cause of concern, does not have locus standi, and will not come within the definition of a 'person aggrieved' in any manner. The petitioner is neither an aspirant, nor eligible nor did he apply for the said post, for which he is seeking interference by this Court under Article- 226 to quash the selection. The short point resting on this vital fact renders this writ petition not maintainable and on the mere ground of concern as espoused, the relief as sought for will not be available to the petitioner.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this writ petition fails due to the lack of locus standi of the petitioner.

However, before parting with the records, notwithstanding other aspects, on the concern as ventilated through the instant writ petition, the authorities will be well advised to look into this area with regard to the appointment of teachers in the Lower and Upper Primary Schools as to whether the prescribed criteria are being adhered to by the various schools under their superintendence and control.

With the said directions, the instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of.