MOUSHOMIARA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order proposed to be made herein meets with the approval of the appearing parties, particularly the appellant, the sixth respondent-writ petitioner and even the State.

(2.) The appellant herein was not a party to the proceedings instituted by the sixth respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining of non-receipt of his salary despite continuing in the post of a sanctioned teacher in a government-aided school in the Garo Hills. The Single Bench directed a report to be furnished by the State Project Director. The appellant claims that the State Project Director may have consulted the managing committee of the relevant school, but without reference to the appellant herein submitted a report to the effect that the appellant herein enjoyed the benefits of the government-sanctioned salary without occupying a sanctioned post.

(3.) The appellant submits that in previous writ proceedings instituted by the appellant in this Court, an order has been made directing the State to pay the salary due to the appellant upon this Court observing that the appellant occupied a sanctioned post. The appellant submits that in the light of the previous order of this Court and the same having been made in the presence of the State and the managing committee of the relevant school, the order impugned herein could not have been passed. The appellant insinuates that the managing committee of the school may have connived with the sixth respondent for obtaining an order to the prejudice of the appellant and, in particular, to negate the order obtained by the appellant in her favour.