Meghalaya High Court
Smt Lalnuntluangi Hlondo vs State Of Meghalaya on 12 August, 2016
Author: Sr Sen
Bench: Sr Sen
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG.
WP(C) No. 299 of 2015
Smti Lalnuntluangi Hlondo
R/o Happy Valley, Shillong-7,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya. ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by the
Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Meghalaya,
Education Department, Shillong.
2. The Director of School
Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. The District School
Education Officer, East
Khasi Hills District,
Shillong.
4. The Secretary, Managing
Committee, H.L. Mizo
Secondary School, Happy
Valley, Shillong-7. ... Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Changkija, Adv.
For the Respondent s : Mr. N.D. Chullai, Sr. GA
& Mr. S.P. Mahanta, Sr. Adv
Date of hearing : 12.08.2016
Date of Judgment & Order : 12.08.2016
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Changkija, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the State respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mrs. M. Wahlang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"On 13-08-2014 an advertisement was published in two local newspaper viz, The Shillong Times and Mawphor for a post of Assistant teacher in the H.L. Mizo Secondary School. The petitioner being eligible in all respects submitted her application and having found eligible she was called for the written test and accordingly the petitioner appeared for the same. After being successfully qualified in the written test, she was called for interview which was held on the 22nd August, 2014. After the interview was conducted, the Selection Board declared the result of the interview and the petitioner was shown to have been selected for the post of the Assistant Teacher in the School and the same was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 vide letter dated 01-09-2014. Thereafter the respondent No.2 approved the name of the Petitioner for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the school and directed the respondent No.3 to issue the necessary order of appointment vide letter No. DSEL/SEC-NG/Apptt/1/2014/Pt.III/216 dated 20-03-2015 and the respondent No. 3 accordingly issued the appointment order vide order No. DSEO/Apptt/HL MSS 2015/15665-69 dated 24-03-2015 appointing the petitioner as the Assistant Teacher in the said school. Subsequent to the approval, the respondent No.3 issued the appointment order vide order No. DSEO/Apptt/HL MSS/2015/15665-69 dated 24-03-2015 appointing the petitioner as the Assistant Teacher in the said school. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 26-03-2015 tendered her resignation from the post of Assistant Teacher in the upper primary section of the same school which she had been holding and joined the school in the 3 sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in the secondary section by submitting her joining report on 27-03-2015. After her joining in the school, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner and for no apparent reason, within a span of 3(three) days of issuance of the appointment letter, the respondent No.3 in a most arbitrary manner withdrew and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the school vide impugned letter No. DSEO/Apptt/HL MSS/2015/157554-58 dated 27-03-2015. The said letter was issued on the basis of another impugned letter No. DSEL/SEC-NG/Apptt/1/2014/Pt.III/217 dated 27-03-2015 issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 informing him that the approval of the petitioner's appointment was issued through oversight and asking him to take steps to cancel the appointment order with immediate effect. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27-03-2015 issued by the Respondent No.3, filed a representation dated 31-03-2015 to the respondent No.2 with a copy to the respondent No.3 and 4 inquiring the reason/ground attributed in cancelling her appointment in the school but till date the petitioner has not been intimated with any reason or ground for cancellation of her appointment.
The issuance of the impugned order dated 27-03- 2015 by the Respondent No.3 on the basis of another impugned letter dated 27-03-2015 issued by the respondent No. 2 are highly arbitrary, illegal, malafide and discriminatory in as much as the same were issued without disclosing any reason whatsoever justifying the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Moreover, no explanation or show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner prior to the issuing of the impugned orders of the cancellation of appointment. The issuance of the impugned orders of cancellation of appointment without any reasonable cause or ground has not only deprived her of the legitimate right but also it has caused immense injustice for no fault of her own in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Hence, the petitioner approach this Hon'ble High Court for redressal of her grievances and praying for quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders of cancellation of appointment dated 27-03-2015".4
3. The learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher against a sanctioned post in H.L. Mizo Secondary School, Happy Valley, Shillong- 793007, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya in response to the Advertisement dated 13.08.2014 which is annexed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition.
4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 has called for the interview where the petitioner appeared and successfully came out as first position. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner stood first position, she was denied for the post of Assistant Teacher at the said school. Besides that, it is also a fact that her appointment was approved by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. Being aggrieved by the act of the respondent No. 2 the petitioner approached this court by way of this instant writ petition. So, necessary directions may be given.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Secretary, Managing Committee, H.L. Mizo Secondary School, Happy Valley, Shillong-7 submits that, while conducting the interview, all the norms and procedures were followed in accordance with the rules. So, there is nothing wrong with the advertisement dated 13.08.2014 issued by the respondent No. 4 who forwarded the name of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 as a successful candidate.
6. The learned Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents No. 1-3 submits that the procedure was not followed as per the rules. The advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher against the sanctioned post needs to be within the knowledge of the Government. Hence, the appointment letter could not be issued in favour of the petitioner. 5
7. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the writ petition placed before me at Annexure-2, I have seen that the Advertisement was floated in two local newspapers called "The Shillong Times" and "Mawphor" dated 13.08.2014. Annexure-3 the score-sheet at Sl. No. 3 shows that the petitioner has scored the highest mark as 111. Further, on perusal of the Annexure-5, it appears that the appointment of Smti Lalnuntluangi Hlondo, M.A. B.Ed (Petitioner) as Assistant Teacher was approved by the Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. Annexure-6 further confirmed the appointment order by the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. Annexure-30-A is the joining letter dated 27.03.2015 which shows that the petitioner had joined her new assignment as Assistant Teacher in H.L. Mizo Secondary School, Happy Valley, Shillong-793007, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. Interestingly, it is also noticed at Annexure-9 the person who approved the petitioner i.e. the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong has withdrawn and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner without assigning any valid reason. Annexure-11 shows that the petitioner made a representative to the Director of School Education and Literacy, Shillong, Meghalaya. So, after perusal of the Annexures and the facts and circumstances of the case above and taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsels present before this court in connection with this case, I noticed and observed the peculiarity on the part of the Government. It is an undisputed fact from the above Annexures that the post was advertised, interview was called, selection procedure was completed, the petitioner scored the highest mark, her name was forwarded to the Government, which was approved by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and the petitioner was allowed to join her new assignment. But, unfortunately the respondent No. 3/The District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong for the reason best known to him has withdrawn and cancelled the appointment vide letter dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure-9 of the writ 6 petition). In my considered view, it is the highest mockery of the system. The learned Sr. GA submits that, the advertisement was not within the notice of the Government, but I am unable to believe as it is an undisputed fact from the submission advanced by Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4 who submits that the Government Authorized Officer namely, Shri V. Kharbyngar, District Science Supervisor from the Office of the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong had attend the said interview which was held on 22.08.2014 at 1:00 PM and this fact is not disputed by the Government.
8. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA in his affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 stated at Para 5 about the procedures which needs to be followed and the same is quoted herein below for ready reference:
"5. That in reply to the statements made in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the writ petition the Answering Respondent beg to state that H.L. Mizo Secondary School is a Government Aided School in respect of the Secondary Section and Upper Primary Section and as such in the matter of recruitment of staff in the said school is governed by the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965. The School Managing Committee has no power or authority to advertise the post in question. In as much as the power to call an advertisement in respect of the post in government aided School lies with the Inspector of School now as the District School Education Officer by virtue of the said Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965. The power of the Managing Committee to fill up the vacancy is only for a period of 3 (three) months and that too subject to the approval of the Inspector of School now as the District School Education Officer.
That as stated earlier herein before the selection process for the post held by the Writ Petitioner was done by the Managing Committee of the school in 7 contravention of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 in as much as and as stated earlier the Managing Committee lacks authority and power to advertise any vacant post in the institution. The selection process and the Selection Committee was not done as required under the Rule 4 of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 is reproduce herein below:
Mode of recruitment:- (1) Headmasters/Headmistresses:
(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 Board shall after interview prepare a list of candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list so prepared to the Managing Committees of the Schools concerned.
(iv) The Managing Committee shall make appointments after due verification and with prior approved of the inspector of schools concerned.
(2) Assistant Headmasters/Assistant Headmistresses of High and Higher secondary Schools:-
(i) There shall be a divisional Selection Board in each Inspectorate consisting of the following:
(a) Inspector of school - Chairman
8
(b) An Assistant Inspector of schools (to be
nominated by the Inspector of Schools) - Secretary
(c) One Headmaster (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam) - Member
(d) One Headmistress (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam - Member
(e) Two educationists (to be nominated by the Director of Public Instruction, Assam) - Member
(ii) The Inspector of Schools 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 the names of the institutions involved.
(iii) The Selection Board shall after interview prepare a list of candidates in order of preference and shall forward the list to the Managing Committee of the Schools concerned.
(iv) The Managing Committee of the schools shall make appointments after due verification and subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools.
(v) The Managing Committee shall have powers to fill up the vacancies for a period not exceeding three months subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools.
(vi) The list of candidates shall ordinarily remain valid for one year from the date of selection. (3) Assistant Teachers:- The Assistant Teachers holding Bachelor's or Higher Degrees shall be selected through a test and/or interview to be conducted either by the Director of Public Instruction or by the Board of Secondary Education as may be decided by the Government from time to time. The Director of Public Instruction shall prepare a list of selected candidates in order of preference and publish the list in the Assam Gazette and forward it to the Managing Committee.
The Managing Committee shall make appointments from the 9 special list after due verification and with the prior approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned. The list of candidates shall ordinarily remain valid for one year.
The Managing Committee shall have powers to fill up vacancies even from outside this list for a period not exceeding three months subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned.
(4) Office Assistants: The Managing Committee concerned shall after due advertisement in at least two newspapers make the appointments of office Assistants subject to the approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned.
This Hon'ble Court in case of Shri Kerlang Chyne Versus State of Meghalaya in WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 vide Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2014 held that the method of recruitment as contemplated under the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 is mandatory in nature and had elaborate provision for selection and also held that recruitment cannot be done by the Governing body or Director of Public Instruction alone. This Judgment and Order dated 21.5.2014 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in case of Shri Kerlang Chyne Versus State of Meghalaya in WP(C) No. 189 of 2011 was carried in Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2014 and Writ Appeal No. 54 of 2014 in the case of Secretary of the Managing Committee of Smith Higher Secondary School Versus State of Meghalaya. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2014 affirmed the findings contained in the Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court.
It may be mentioned herein that while processing the proposal for approval of the Selection of the Writ Petitioner due to oversight the approval was granted contrary to the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 and as soon as this mistake was detected that the Selection Process was not done in terms of the provision of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 the impugned Order which was under challenged in the writ petition has been issued. It is respectfully submitted that the withdrawal and cancellation of the approval and appointment of the 10 Petitioner cannot be faulted with and a fresh selection process in accordance with the requirement of Rule 4 of the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules 1965 as quoted herein above is required to be done".
However, the learned Sr. GA could not produce the rule before this court. Whatever the case may be, at this stage the Government has no scope to say that the advertisement, interview and appointment was not in their knowledge because firstly, the advertisement was floated in a newspaper and the interview was conducted on 22.08.2014 where the representative of the Director of School Education and Literacy, Shillong, Meghalaya was very much present and secondly, the appointment was approved by the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. So, it is clear that the whole process and exercise was within their knowledge and for their own whimsical reason, they have cancelled and withdrawn the appointment letter of the petitioner.
9. In reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 also made it clear in his affidavit-in-opposition at Para 5 Page 2 which is as under:
"5. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph - 4, 7, 9 & 11 of the Writ Petition the Answering Respondent says that the Advertisement were not only publish on 13-08-2014 in 2 (Two) Local Newspapers but it was also publish on 17- 08-2014 for the 2nd (Second) time in the local Newspaper viz., THE SHILLONG TIMES.
That it is pertinent to state herein that the School authority(s) are following the instruction issued by Notification No. IS/M/Apptt/91/12378-435 dt 21.5.1991 and again by Letter No. DSEO/Circular/2013/12332-82, dated Shillong, the 4th July, 2013 by the then Inspector of School, East Khasi Hills District with regard to the subject of Appointment to fill 11 up the Vacancy to be followed and the proposal is to be submitted in the modified G.I.A Form No. I and recruitment to be informed to the District School Education Officer. Since that time till date the School Managing Committee is following the said Procedure for Appointment whether Advertisement of Vacant Post, Written and Oral Test as required to be conducted and informing the concern Officer and therefore, the same procedure have been follow in case of the Petitioner".
10. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at Bar and after scanning the record as discussed above, I am of the firm view that, withdrawal and cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner is totally illegal and against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, it has no legs to stand. As a consequence, withdrawal and cancellation of the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure-9 of the writ petition) is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to restore back the petitioner to her service within 24 (twenty four) hours with all her monetary benefits from the date on which her appointment letter dated 27.03.2015 was cancelled. The learned Sr. GA for the State respondents No. 1-3 is also requested to inform the authority concerned today itself.
11. Before I part with the case record, I would like to observe and advise the Government Officials to be careful while dealing with the public works, interests and appointments and before taking any decision, one should take note and think twice about the consequences of these types of arbitrary decisions and the misery that he/she will face. I believed that in future no such illegal arbitrary decision will be taken by the Government Officials specially those who are involved with the Education Department. 12
12. With these observations and directions the instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.
13. No order as to costs.
JUDGE D. Nary