MELONIA KHARKAMNI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. M.Z.Ahmed, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned senior Government Advocate, who entered his appearance for the State-respondents. In view of the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition raised by the learned State counsel, I did not think it necessary to issue to the private respondents and decided to dispose of the writ petition at the motion stage.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. N.D. Chulai, the learned senior State counsel, was that the writ petition is not only hit by the doctrine of laches but was also barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. To appreciate his submissions, I will briefly refer to the facts of the case, which are hardly in dispute. THE petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher of Sacred RCLP School, Mawshbuit in the East Khasi Hills District on 15-6-1981 by the Managing Committee of the School, represented in this writ petition by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, vice one Meristella Kharkongor, and her appointment was subsequently approved by the District Council of the Shillong. In the year 1993, the State Government took over the School from the District Council. She has eight children from her wed-lock with her husband, who, however, committed adultery with another woman and abandoned her and their children whereafter she has to maintain herself and their children from her meagre salary. In the year 1997, she and her colleagues were made to sign an agreement by the Managing Committee of the School pertaining to the rules of the Managing Committee having religious overtones, which were inconsistent with the Constitution of India. However, she had to sign the agreement for fear of losing her job. In course of time, she was married to one Andreas Kharumnuid and gave birth to another child. Soon after her marriage with Andreas Kharumnuid, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 started harassing her with a view to abandon her husband on the ground that her association with her husband was incompatible with the rules and regulations of the School. This was followed by the letter dated 14-2-1998 issued by the respondent No. 4 terminating her service w.e.f. 12-2-1998. THE respondent No. 4 thereafter forwarded the termination letter to the respondent No. 3 for according his approval thereto, but the respondent No. 3 refused to approve the same and advised the respondent No. 5 to draw up a disciplinary proceeding against her. THE respondents No. 4 and 5 did not abide by the instruction of the respondent No. 3 and instead withheld her salaries and appointed the respondent No. 6 in her place without the approval of the respondent No.