SAMCHITA SAHA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2001 issued by the respondent No. 5 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Teacher of St. Anthony's Higher Secondary School, Shillong.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. P.D.B. Barua, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

(3.) The facts and circumstances of the case, as emerged from the pleadings of the parties, are that in response to the advertisement issued in the newspaper, the petitioner on 28.01.2000 applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in the St. Anthony's Higher Secondary School, was interviewed on 09.02.2000 and was thereafter duly selected for appointment to the said post. Following her appointment she joined the post on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended upto six months and again upto another six months. Her appointment was subsequently approved by the respondent No. 3 with effect from the date of her joining the said post. i.e. 01.03.2000 vide the office order dated 13.04.2000. According to the petitioner, since she joined the post, she was rendering her services with sincerity and diligence and without any blemishes whatsoever and that there was never any complaint against her from any quarters. She states that by the letter dated 15.12.2001 (Annexure-3), she has been informed by the respondent No. 5 that the Managing Committee of the School had decided to terminate her services with effect from o 1.01.2002 on the ground that she had failed to show necessary aptitude and diligence in her job. The petitioner further states that the proposed termination of her services was done without obtaining the prior approval of the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 or any other competent authority of the Government of Meghalaya as required by the provisions of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). She also states that the termination order was made malafide and without issuing any show cause notice to her or without initiating any departmental proceeding against her before issuing the impugned termination order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is approaching this court by way of this writ petition.