T SHAHOTO VIMCHUNGER Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for issuing an appropriate writ directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as under graduate teacher in terms of Cabinet decision dated 14.5.01 (Annexure-D to the writ petition).

(2.) I have heard Mr C.T. Jamir, learned counsel assisted by Mr L.T. Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lucy, learned Govt. Advocate for the Slate respondents.

(3.) The petitioner who belongs to a backward tribe was initially appointed as Substitute Assistant Teacher by an order dated 15.2.90. While he was serving as such, he appeared HSLC examination and passed out successfully in the year 1993. After passing HSLC examination, he was granted matriculate scale of pay with effect from 25,5.93. Thereafter, by an order dated 18.9.2000 (Annexure-C) the petitioner's appointment was ordered to be treated as ad hoc appointment in his own grade and same time scale of pay vice late Ahukiu, Primary teacher, expired on 13.6.90. The School Education Department came out with a policy for directly regularising the service of ad hoc teachers who have put in 10 years and above continues service as on 14.5.01. The said policy was approved by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 34.5.2001 and such approval was communicated vide office memorandum No. CAB-1/2001 dated 16.5.2001 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). By circular dated 1.5.01 (Annexure-E) the petitioner was directed to appear in under graduate teacher interview on 8.6,2001 for regularisation of his service. The petitioner appeared in the said interview. It is submitted that the petitioner was unnecessarily subjected to the interview held on 8.6.2001 in defiance of the policy decision of the Government with regard to regularisation of the ad hoc teachers without requiring them to face any interview. It has further been alleged that persons similarly situated to the petitioner were regularised without subjecting them to any interview. This amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. While admitting this writ petition and issuing a rule, this Court by an interim order dated 13.7.2001 directed the respondents not to oust the petitioner from service. That is how the petitioner is still serving as Assistant Teacher.