Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Kerlang Chyne vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 21 May, 2014
Author: Sr Sen
Bench: Sr Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
WP(C) No. 189 of 2011
Shri. Kerlang Chyne
S/o (L) Kescoballin Bynnud
Aged about 44 years
Resident of Malki Nongshilliang,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong,
Meghalaya
........Petitioner
- Vrs -
1. State of Meghalaya represented by the
Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Meghalaya.
2. Director of Higher & Technical Education,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. Inspector of Schools,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong,
Meghalaya.
4. Secretary of the Managing Committee of
Smit Higher Secondary School, Smit,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
5. Principal of the Smit Higher Secondary,
School, Smit, Shillong, Meghalaya.
6. Dorbar Shnong Smit Pyllun Khyrim
Shiemship represented by its Secretary.
7. Smti. Drassila Mawroh,
W/o (L) Mark Kharmudai,
Resident of Umlynghong,
Smit Village, Khyrim Shyiemship,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
8. Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya
........... Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A Khan Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. ND Chullai Mr. H Kharmih Mr. VGK Kynta Mr. P Nongbri Date of Hearing : 12.05.2014 Date of Judgment and Order : 21.05.2014 No. WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 Page 1 of 4 JUDGMENT AND ORDER This instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 1.04.11 passed by the respondent No. 3.
2. The brief facts of the case in nut shell are that, "the petitioner is the Assistant Teacher in Smit Higher Secondary School, Shillong and has been serving in the School since 1.06.87. The principal of the School Smti. B Syiem sought for voluntary retirement on 27.12.06 w.e.f. 31.03.07 and consequently the post of Principal felt vacant. The Managing Committee of the School decided to fill up the post of Principal by private respondent No.
7. However, the Joint Director Higher & Technical Education, Meghalaya refused to approved the appointment of the private respondent as Principal of the School and further directed to fill up the post of Principal of the said School in terms of seniority from among the Assistant Teacher of the School. The petitioner is the senior most teacher in the School and falls within the zone for consideration for the post of Principal. However, the private respondent No. 7 has been appointed by the Joint Director, Higher & Technical Education vide impugned order dated 1.04.11. The petitioner has been arbitrarily denied promotion to the post of Principal of the Smit Higher Secondary School, Shillong being aggrieved by the letter dated 1.04.11 has preferred this instant writ petition".
3. Mr. A Khan, the learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, after the voluntary retirement of the then Principal of the School, the petitioner was the senior most teacher and should have been appointed as Headmistress/Principal but the respondent authorities in violation all the rules and norms appointed the junior teacher i.e. respondent No. 7 as Headmistress/Principal of the School. The learned counsel further contended that, the petitioner joined service since 1987, so naturally she is the much more senior than respondent No. 7.
4. Mr. ND Chullai, the learned senior counsel appeared for on behalf of the State submitted that, this instant case is covered by the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees No. WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 Page 2 of 4 Rules, 1965 and not by the Meghalaya Board of School Education Act, 1973.
5. Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned senior counsel submitted that case is covered by Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981.
6. I have perused the documents on record and on further perusal of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981; I do not find any provision for promotion or appointment of Headmistress/Principal. However, on perusal of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965, Section-4 and Section-5 provide Method of recruitment and Academic and other qualifications.
7. Section-4 Method of recruitment of Headmasters/ Headmistresses is reproduced herein below:
(i) "there shall be a State Selection Board consisting of the following, viz.
(a) Director of Public Instruction, Assam -
Chairman
(b) Additional Director of Public Instruction, Assam - Secretary
(c) Inspectors of Schools concerned - Members
(d) Two Educationists to be nominated by the Government - Members
(ii) The Director of Public Instruction, Assam, shall ascertain from various institutions concerned well ahead of each academic year vacancies that are likely to occur during the year and advertise in at least two newspapers and also in the Assam Gazette and forward to the Selection Board the applications received together with all relevant records indicating at the same time the number of vacancies and names of the institutions involved.
(iii) The Selection shall after interview prepare a list of candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list so prepared to the Managing Committee of the Schools concerned.
(iv) The Managing Committee shall made appointments after due verification and with prior approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned."
8. On bare perusal of method of recruitment, it is clear to me that, while appointing of Headmasters/Headmistresses, State Selection Board must be constituted consisting of Director of Public Instruction, Additional Director of Public Instruction, Inspectors of School concerned and 2(two) Educationist to be nominated by the Government. It is further No. WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 Page 3 of 4 observed that this method of recruitment is mandatory in nature, so the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965 made elaborate provision for selection of Headmasters/Headmistresses.
9. Therefore, in my view Headmasters/Headmistresses cannot be recruited by the governing body or Director of Public Instruction alone for which Selection Board is a must. In this instant case, respondent No. 7 has been appointed as Headmistress/Principal bypassing the Provision as laid down under Section-4 of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965. Therefore, in my view appointment of respondent No. 7 is illegal and in violation of Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965.
10. For the reasons as discussed above, I find that the appointment of respondent No. 7 is not in accordance with the rules and laws, hence, the impugned order dated 1.04.11 is hereby set aside. However, it is further observed that, selection of new Headmistress may take sometime; so for the smooth functioning of the School, let the respondent No. 7 continue as Headmistress and she is also entitled to appear in the Selection Board. It is further ordered that, since there is no fault on her part, the salary and other benefits which she has already drawn during her service as Headmistress should not be recovered. The Government authorities should constitute the Selection Board within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this Judgment & Order and to complete the whole process of selection within 2(two) months.
11. With these observations and directions, this instant writ petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.
JUDGE V Lyndem No. WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 Page 4 of 4