Shahazaman Miah vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that after being appointed as Headmaster of the school namely; Nandichar Muktab SSA, U.P. School on 20.03.2010, he continued as such till November, 2017 when he was not allowed to discharge his duties any further by the Managing Committee without any reason being assigned. Further, case of the petitioner is that the District Mission Co-ordinator, SSA, West Garo Hills, Tura had issued an order dated 20.09.2016, whereby 15 schools including the school of the petitioner were directed to review the status of teachers teaching in the said schools and that the case of the petitioner, was to be considered against a sanctioned post. As nothing further transpired, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the State respondents, which he claims has never been answered. Hence the writ petition.

Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner in his submissions has taken this Court to the order dated 20.09.2016 to substantiate the fact that instead of being considered for the post of sanctioned teacher, he was ousted from service by the Managing Committee (Respondent No. 9). He further submits that he had filed a representation, which was never answered and prays that his service be restored and considered against the sanctioned post in the said school.

Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents at the outset submits that the contention that the petitioner had filed a representation is factually incorrect, as no representation has ever come to the notice of the State respondents to enable them to address the same. He further submits that the dispute if any, is primarily between the Managing Committee (Respondent No. 9 with the petitioner, and it is for them to resolve the same before seeking approval from the State respondents as to the status of service of the petitioner.

Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 (Managing Committee) submits that whatever actions that had been done, were by the earlier Managing Committee and its term has since lapsed. He submits that the petitioner by himself, had stopped coming to school to discharge his duties and that the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster was only a stopgap arrangement and whatever decisions taken by the earlier Managing Committee was for the best interest of the school and no mala fide or arbitrariness can be attributed to the actions. He further submits that no representation has been filed by the petitioner before the Managing Committee. As such, he submits the writ petition having no merit and that the petitioner having not agitated for his rights, the writ petition deserves no consideration.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts that can be gleaned from the submissions and materials on record after due consideration, is that the petitioner who was appointed by the Managing Committee as Headmaster lost his employment for reasons which are still unclear, which even this Court cannot discern to balance the competing rights of the parties. A point of interest is however the order dated 20.09.2016, issued by the District Mission Co-ordinator, West Garo Hills, Tura, wherein the concerned school along with other 15 SSA schools were directed to review the appointments of subject specific teachers while taking into consideration teachers instructed to be considered as sanctioned teachers. As contended by the petitioner, his name finds place in the list appended in the order dated 20.09.2016 for consideration against the sanctioned post.

As earlier observed, it is not known and neither the counsel of the parties have been able to apprise this Court as to whether any action was taken by the concerned Managing Committee pursuant of the order dated 20.09.2016. Situated thus, this Court is unable to come to a definite finding on the status of employment of the petitioner. In this backdrop, this writ petition is therefore disposed of by allowing the writ petitioner to make a detailed representation before the District Mission Co-ordinator with a copy to the State respondents and to the Managing Committee stating the entire case. The said representation, shall thereafter be disposed of within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt copy of same by the concerned respondent.

With the above directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.