AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, seeking the following relief:-
In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition,
issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari, and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued, directing the respondent authority to appoint the Petitioner as L.P. School
Teacher being qualified to hold the post as per the norms/criteria as prescribed in the Circular dated. 01-04-2015, and/or as to why
the direction should not be issued to the State Respondent to not extend the service of the Private Respondent, and/or as to why any
candidate who fulfils the NCTE Norms and Office Circular dated. 01-04-2015 should not be considered for appointment to the Post
of L.P. School Teacher in any Govt. L.P.School, and should not be considered even in Temporary Post of L.P. School Teacher, and
show cause, if being filed and after hearing the parties, make the rule absolute and/or may pass such other or further orders or
Direction as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
The case of the petitioner is that he is a candidate having passed S.S.L.C., H.S.S.L.C, B. Sc (Maths) and also completed B. Ed. and as such he
is duly qualified to hold the post of L.P. School Teacher as per the office circular dated 1st April, 2015 and the petitioner also possess five years
teaching experience.
It is stated that one post of Government L.P. School Teacher fell vacant on retirement of Smti Shadana Barman of Mondolpara Government
L.P. School and the petitioner applied for the said post. The respondent, Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong
approved the appointment of the petitioner vide letter No. DSEL/EL/GA/APPT/2/2015/242, dated 22nd December, 2015. It is also stated that
respondent No. 5 was appointed on a temporary basis for 59 days as L.P. School Teacher of Mondolpara Government L.P. School, though, he is
not qualified in terms of Govt. circular dated 1st April, 2015.
It is also stated that the petitioner again applied for the said post and appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Deputy Director of
School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong vide letter dated 03rd June, 2016. The petitioner was temporarily appointed for a period of
59 days and the appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 22nd June, 2016. The petitioner joined the School on 1st July, 2016 but the
Headmaster of the School did not allow him to mark attendance in the attendance register. Thereafter, the respondent School issued appointment
letter for the same post in favour of respondent No. 5.
The petition has been opposed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The relevant para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition
reads as under:
That in response to the averments made in para 4, 5, 6, 7,8 and 9 of the writ petition, the answering respondent while denying the
allegations of the petitioner as false and baseless, states that the petitioner''s appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher at
Mondolpara Govt. L.P.School was approved on two occasions, one vide letter No. DSEL/EL/GA/APPT/2/2015/242, dated
22.12.2015 (Annexure-4 page 38 of the writ petition) and again for a period of 59 days vide letter No.
DSEL/EL/GA/APPT/2/201/260, dated 3.6.2016 (Annexure-5 page 39 of the writ petition). However, in both the occasions the
petitioner failed to join his service on time and as such the private respondent No. 5 was appointed so that the concerned students of
the said school do not suffer due to lack of teaching staff. Again, with regard to the joining report of the petitioner, it may be stated
that as per normal procedure, the joining report was to be addressed/submitted to the Secretary of the School Managing Committee
and not to the District School Education Officer.
Further, the petitioner approached this Hon''ble Court on 31.8.2016 after the expiry of 59 days period of his appointment and as
such the appointment of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled/terminated prior to the petitioner approaching this Hon''ble Court
and hence this writ petition is infructuous from the beginning and therefore on this ground alone this instant writ petition may be
dismissed by this Hon''ble Court.
The respondent No. 5 was duly served and counsel for the respondent No. 5 appeared on 26.09.2016. However, counter affidavit on behalf of
respondent No. 5 has not been filed. Today, none appears on behalf of respondent No. 5 despite passover .
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and also perused the material on record.
Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining the prayer to the extent that the respondents No. 1 to 4 be
directed to follow the criteria as prescribed in circular dated 1st April, 2015 and L.P. School Teacher be appointed in terms of circular dated 1st
April, 2015 (Annexure-2 to the petition). He also submits that he does not press the other prayer for consideration and appointment of the
petitioner to the post of L.P. School Teacher in Government L.P. School.
During the course of arguments, Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has fairly conceded that for respondents
No. 1 to 4 shall follow the norms/criteria issued vide circular No. DSEL/EL/GA/APPT/15/2014/214, dated 1st April, 2015 issued by Director of
School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya (Annexure-2 to the petition). He also fairly concedes that the respondents No. 1 to 4 shall not appoint
or extend the services of any teacher in violation of circular dated 1st April, 2015.
At this stage, Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 to 4. The counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the present petition is
dismissed as withdrawn.