LIODREKSHON NONGSIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ petition, was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Pdengshnong Japung L.P. School by the Managing Committee of the School with the approval of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, West Khasi Hills District (respondent 3) in terms of the order dated 6-2-1995. The School is a Non-Government Aided School and is governed by the provisions of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder. The School is apparently a Single Teacher School. The petitioner claims that he used to be functioning as an Assistant Teacher as well as Headmaster of the School. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Notification dated 30-5-1996 issued by the Director of Public Instructions, it has been stipulated that except for Minority School, all head teachers of Non-Government Aided Primary Schools shall function as Secretaries of the School Managing Committee with immediate effect. In compliance with the said notification, the respondent No. 2 vide the order dated 1-4-2005 approved the Managing Committee of the School with the petitioner as the Secretary of the Managing Committee for a period of three years. On the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee, the respondent No. 2 constituted a new Managing Committee with the respondent No. 4 as its Secretary who, according to the petitioner, has no connection with the School. Following the constitution of new Managing Committee, the petitioner has ceased to receive his salary from the School. It is contended by the petitioner that by this action of the respondents, he suffered in two ways, namely, he lost the office of Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School and he has also been deprived of his salaries entitled to him under the law. Contending that his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution have been infringed, he is filing this writ petition for appropriate reliefs.

(2.) The writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. However, the case is not contested by the respondent No. 4 despite proper service of notice upon him. The stance taken by the State-respondents is that there is nothing on record to show that the appointment of the petitioner was done after the post was duly advertised. According to the State-respondents, the petitioner never performed his duty regularly: in fact, he engaged some other person on contract basis to teach the students in the School for which these school children were suffering. It is alleged by the answering respondents that the Village Dorbar in its meeting held on 18-3-08 had decided to appoint a new Secretary of the School in place of the petitioner for the smooth functioning of the School. On receipt of the decision so taken submitted through the local Headman and Secretary of concerned village, verification was made with respect to those allegations and it was found that the petitioner had never attended his duty as the teacher of the School whereupon payment of his salary was stopped with effect from 1 -7-2008 on the basis of "No work, No pay". The new Managing Committee was constituted with the respondent No. 4 as the new Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School on the recommendation of the Nongpdeng Village Dorbar which was held on 18-3-08. It is maintained by the answering respondents that notification dated 6-6-1996 relied upon by the petitioner is merely guidelines and is advisory in nature. These are the contentions of the State-respondents.

(3.) From the affidavit-in-opposition of the State-respondents, it is obvious that following the constitution of the new Managing Committee, the petitioner has not only been replaced as the Secretary of the Managing Committee but has also been deprived of his salary as an Assistant Teacher with effect 1-7-2008 on the basis of "No work, No pay". In my opinion, this exercise virtually amounts to termination of the service of the petitioner or removal from his service. The affidavit-in-opposition also reveals that this action has been taken by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had never attended his duty and had even engaged some other person on contract basis to teach the school children. It is contended by Mr. E.C. Suja, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but has contravened the provisions of Sec. 9(2) of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 ("the Act") and proviso (1) to Rule 4(B) of the Rules regarding conduct and discipline of the Employees of Aided Educational Institution. At this stage, it may be useful to reproduce the provisions of Sec. 9(2) of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 hereunder: