AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. P.Yobin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AG appearing for all the respondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned corrigendum No. DSEL/EL/GA/MISC/11/2016/228 dated Shillong the 15th July 2020 (Annexure IX) and/or,
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith cancel/recall/ rescind the impugned corrigendum No. DSEL/EL/GA/MISC/11/2016/228 dated Shillong the 15th July 2020 (Annexure-IX).
iii. Issue mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for the selection process of recruitment of the Assistant Teachers in the Government Elementary School as Advertisement vide advertisement dated 29th May, 2020."
The petitioners were terminated from the post of Assistant Teachers in the Government Elementary School consequent upon the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 02-11-2017 passed in WA. No. 52/2011 and connected appeals by holding the entire selection process got vitiated as many selected candidates were found to be tainted.
The operative part of the judgment and order dated 02-11-2017 passed in WA. No. 52/2011 reads as follows:
"1(a) The whole of selection process under the advertisement dated 10.12.2008, as issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools in pursuance of Notification dated 24.11.2008, is held vitiated in relation to Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadengre Centres; and is annulled subject to the proviso that only the candidates who have been treated as untainted/unblemished both in the reports of CBI and HLSC and are in service, may be allowed to continue as stop-gap arrangement until fresh selection takes place.
(b) The prayer of other untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres for induction in service stands rejected.
(c) However, all the untainted/unblemished candidates of the said five Centres, whether in service or not, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if otherwise eligible in accordance with the presently applicable Rules/Guidelines, without necessity of their applying afresh. In this regard it is also provided that none of such untainted/unblemished candidates shall be treated as age-barred if he/she was within the age prescribed by the notification dated 24.11.2008.
(d) None of the candidates who has been found tainted/blemished, whether in the report of CBI or in the report of HLSC or both as also none of the candidates who had been recommended by the public representative shall be taken or retained in service even in stop-gap arrangement and the service of every such candidate, who is yet continuing, whether by way of regular appointment or in ad hoc arrangement, shall stand terminated with immediate effect.
For the candidates who have been found tainted/blemished in the CBI report and/or HLSC report for Shillong Sadar, Jowai, Amlarem, Tura and Dadenggre, it is provided that any such candidate, if so desires, may make a representation, within 30 days from today, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya for consideration as untainted candidate. The Chief Secretary shall get such representation/s examined by a three-member Committee, comprising of himself; and one member from the State Civil Services having unblemished service record and of impeccable integrity; and one independent member from any Central or State Educational Institution or University. The said Committee shall take decision on such representation/s within 60 days of making; and if the Committee would accept the representation and treat the candidate as untainted, he/she shall be entitled to the right of participation in the fresh selection process at par with other untainted candidates. It is, however, made clear that if the Committee would confirm the tainted character of any such candidate, he/she shall stand permanently debarred from seeking any Government employment and shall also be liable for penalty quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) that shall be deposited in the State Disaster Management Fund."
Reading of the above operative part of the judgment and order makes it clear that the terminated teachers were categorized in two categories, namely, tainted and untainted teachers. The untainted/unblemished candidates, whether in service or not, were allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if otherwise eligible in accordance with the Rules/Guidelines. The tainted teachers were given an option to make a representation within 30 days to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya for consideration as untainted candidates.
According to the petitioners, the said Division Bench judgment made three categories of the candidates/teachers.
(i) Those whose candidature were found untainted/unblemished.
(ii) Those candidates found to be tainted/blemished but have filed representation before the Committee of the Chief Secretary.
(iii) Those candidates who were termed as tainted/blemished but did not file representation before the Committee of the Chief Secretary.
The contention of the petitioners that they are in the third category and therefore, they are entitled to participate in the fresh recruitment process.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that though the petitioners are tainted teachers, they are not charge sheeted by the CBI and therefore, they cannot be deprived from participation in fresh recruitment process.
The petitioners however, were not allowed to participate in the fresh recruitment process in the light of the communication made by the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong dated 15th July, 2020 to all the District School Education Officers, Meghalaya and Sub-Divisional School Education Officers, Meghalaya. The petitioners have therefore challenged this communication.
In response to this, learned AG submitted that non-filing of charge-sheet against the petitioners will not take away their categorization as tainted teachers as same was done on the basis of an independent report which was accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The learned AG while opposing the petition submitted that there are only two categories under the Division Bench judgment and order in WA. No. 52/2011. He submits that petitioners have also admitted in the petition that they are tainted and therefore in terms of the said judgment and order, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through all the relevant papers, I find no merit in the petition. The petitioners admittedly are tainted teachers. In terms of the operative part of the judgment and order in WA. No. 52/2011, they are not entitled for participation in the fresh recruitment process. The stand of the petitioners that the said judgment created three categories, namely, untainted, tainted but filed representation and tainted but not filed representation cannot be accepted. The operative part of the judgment referred above makes it very clear that there are only two categories. The petitioners who are admittedly tainted teachers in terms of the said judgment and order were allowed to file representation within a period of 30 days to the Chief Secretary. Admittedly, they have not filed such representation. In such circumstances, the category of the petitioners as tainted teachers remain unchanged. In my view, difference cannot be made in the category of tainted teachers who have filed representation and tainted teachers who have not filed representation. The fact is that the category of the petitioners as tainted teachers remains unchanged. The impugned communication by the Director School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong, therefore, in my view, is in consonance with the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 02-11-2017 passed in WA. No. 52/2011.
The petitioners were not charge-sheeted possibly because their criminality was not found. However, in earlier report submitted to the High Court by the CBI, the tainted teachers like the petitioners were found to have manipulated the selection process. The petitioners cannot take advantage of the fact that they have not been charge-sheeted especially when they have been categorized as tainted teachers by the CBI and this has been accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment and order dated 02-11-2017 passed in WA. No. 52/2011.
Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition is without merit and same is dismissed.