DIMIMEMON TARIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ application has questioned the actions of the respondent School in appointing Respondent No.6 as an Assistant Teacher, who in the opinion of the petitioner has been done without complying with the mandated guidelines enacted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

(2.) Ms. C.B. Sawain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, special criteria has been laid down prescribing the qualifications for appointment of teachers in Lower and Upper Primary Schools. She submits that the respondents 3 to 5, had advertised the post of Assistant Teacher at Thangbuli Upper Primary School through a daily newspaper on 12th September, 2013 and that in the said advertisement, the respondents had failed to mention the required qualifications as per the mandated NCTE guidelines. She also submits that against the said advertisement, the petitioner had then written to the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer, Amlarem Sub-Division (Respondent No. 2) and pointed out the lapses and sought correction. The learned counsel submits that the post was then re-advertised on 29th November, 2013 but the criteria was limited only to those candidates having a degree in B.Sc. with preference in B.Ed. with no other mention of other necessary qualifications. She further submits that in spite of calling attention to the faulty advertisement, the respondent School on the basis of the said advertisement conducted the selection and appointed the candidate from the select list. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had initially approached the Civil Court by way of a Title Suit but withdrew the same, and after withdrawal, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for quashing of the advertisements dated 12th September, 2013 and 29th November, 2013, the selection result dated 1st March, 2014 and the subsequent appointment dated 8th April, 2014. She concludes her submissions by saying that the entire selection being vitiated for non-compliance of the NCTE mandate, the same should be set aside and quashed and the post be re-advertised as per the mandated NCTE norms.

(3.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondents No. 1 and 2 in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner was neither a candidate nor an aspirant to the post, as such the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection and appointment. He also submits that the prescribed norms as laid down by NCTE have been forwarded to the concerned School by the official respondents which had advertised the post, however, he submits in view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus, this Court need not look into this aspect of the matter as the relief as claimed by the petitioner is inadmissible.