MANOJ KR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry in Raid Laban College by the Principal of the College in the month of March, 1993 at a monthly salary of Rs. 400/-. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the salary was subsequently raised to Rs. 1.500/- with a further promise by the Principal of the College that such salary of the petitioner would be increased to Rs. 6,000/- per month we.f. July, 2002. As reflected in the writ petition, the petitioner put in nine (9) years of service as a Lecturer in the College out of which a period of 5 years was as a whole time Lecturer. The services of the petitioner was discontinued w.e.f. 1.8.2002. It will be pertinent to mention here that except the averments made in the writ p etition, neither the copy of any appointment order nor the order of termination has been annexed to the writ petition. However as a proof of employment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in the College, the petitioner h as relied upon certain documents to show that he was in fact serving as a Lecturer in the said College. A few certificates issued by the Principal of the College ceitifiying the services of the petitioner as a Lecturer in the department of Chemistry in the said College have also been annexed to the writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition there are all together five (5) respondents of which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the State of Meghalaya and the Director of Higher & Technical Education. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the College in question and the Principal of the College respectively. Respondent No. 5 is one Smti. Tuhina Roy Choudhury, Lectirerin Chemistry of the said College. The prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including scale of pay as admissible and also for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5. However, no copy of the order of appointment made in respect of the respondent No. 5 has been annexed. Yet the aforesaid prayer has been made for setting aside the appointment of the respondent No. 5. As per the averments made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 5 was appointed against the leave vacancy pursuant to an advertisement issued on 31.7.2002. However, the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that such appointment of the respondent No. 5 was against the resultant vacancy which was caused due to illegal termination of the services of the petitioner.

(3.) None of the respondent has responded to the writ proceeding by filing any affidavit. However, from the averments made in the writ petition, it is not clear as to whether the college in question is under deep and pervasive control of the State of Meghalaya in the Education Department. Nothing has been brought on record to show any control of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 over the College. As p er the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed by the Principal of the College and it was the Principal who orally terminated the services of the petitioner. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the State instrumentalities and for that matter the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had at any point of time approved the appointment of the petitioner. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to what for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been impleaded in the writ petition as party-respondent. Throughout the writ petition the only grievance raised is in respect of the action of the respondent No. 4. In paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition, averments have been made that the Collage is not a purely private one and that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are amenable to writ jurisdiction and thus the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.