SMTI. WATIJUNGLA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lucy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

(2.) The case projected in the present writ petition is that the writ petitioner was appointed by an order dated 21.11.2001 issued by the Joint Director (HOD), in the Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland, as a Hindi Teacher on Adhoc basis in a post which fell vacant in Nazareth School, Pfutsero, consequent upon the death of the incumbent, namely, Shri. Kekuo Angami. According to the terms of the order, the aforesaid appointment was to expire on 30.04.2002 It is stated that the service of the petitioner was continued on the basis of extension orders issued from time to time and the petitioner continued to work on Ad-hoc basis till 31.12.2006 on the basis of extension order dated 26.03.2006. When the petitioner prayed for further extension beyond 31.12.2006, the same was not considered. In the meantime, by an order dated 26.08.2008, which was issued by Deputy Inspector of School Education, Pfutsero, Nagaland, the salary of the petitioner along with another was for the month of June, 2008 till further extension order is issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland and as a result, the petitioner was compelled to approach this court by a writ petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India which was registered as W.P.(C) No.7(K)2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 02.03.2009.

(3.) After disposal of the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner had come across a letter dated 25.06.2009 addressed to the Additional Advocate General, Kohima Bench, containing instruction in respect of the W.P.(C) NO. 07(K) 2009 and along with the said letter, a provisional list of Hindi Teachers as on 30.02.2009(sic), was also enclosed wherein the petitioners name appears at Sl.No.545. It is stated that the said provisional list would unequivocally prove that the order dated 26.06.2008 was issued arbitrarily and malafide and that there was no doubt with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. It is also stated that in the absence of any written direction from the appointing authority, respondent No.3 could not have issued the order dated 26.06.2008 stopping his salary.