KRIUS WAHLANG Vs. STATE OF MEGALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, it appears to me that the writ petitioner has prayed for calling the relevant records from the D.P.I., Shillong, in respect of Khliehriat High School and also from Khliehriat High School with regard to the personal file of the writ petitioner, attendance register for teachers, salary register, school fees receipt, rent receipts for teachers quarters ; for quashing the impugned termination letter/order dated 16.6.93 as in Annexure 'M' to the writ petition and for further order and direction to the DPI to inquire and submit a report regarding the jugglery of accounts if any, and the utilisation of public exchequer, etc. etc. The Office letter/order dated 16.6.93 issued by the Secretary, Khliehriat High School as in Annexure 'M' to the writ petition xausing the termination of the services of the writ petitioner, is the main subject matter under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Considering the nature of the case, it is not necessary to elaborate the facts of the case in detail. However, for better appreciation on the point of controversy between the parties, I highlight the facts of the case in a short compass as hereunder:

(3.) According to the writ petitioner, he graduated with English Honours from NEHU and he is pursuing MA in English and in course of time, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Khliehriat High School in the year 1990, which is absolutely under the control of the Rev. Father. The Salesians of Don Bosco had sec up a school namely Khliehriat High School at Khliehriat, Jaintia Hills with Father Fantin Henry as Asstt. Parish Priest-cum-Headmaster and the said school was recognised and rather was deficited in course of time and as such, Khliehriat High School is absolutely under the financial control and management of the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya inasmuch as the entire salary of he staff and teachers of the said school is borne by the D.P.I., Meghalaya, and on that ground alone the said school authority is answerable to the fundamental rights jurisdiction under Part III of the Constitution of India. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that though he was appointed in the year 1990 as Assistant teacher of the said school, the respondent No. 4 namely Secretary, Khliehriat High School did not issue any appointment letter/order either in the form of temporary or provisional or permanent. However, the petitioner continued in the said post with salary, quarter facilities and other benefits till the impugned order of 16.6.93 as in Annexure 'M' to the writ petition was passed. The writ petitioner made certain allegations as against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and also he expressed about the irregularities committed by the School authority towards the teaching staff Apart from this, the writ petitioner had charged the respondents/school authority by contending inter-alia that the school authority never issued any receipt for school fees to the students and the petitioner is not in a position to believe that the school funds is so meagerly shaped that it cannot bear the burden of printing receipt books in spite of special note being incorporated at page 10 of the calendar books. According to the petitioner, the teachers are also not given any rent receipts for their accommodation though the respondents are collecting directly Rs.225/- per month for occupation of the staff quarter. Those allegations of the writ petitioner finds its place in para 8 to 19 of the writ petition. The respondent No. 4 passed the impugned termination order dated 16.6.93 and served it personally upon the petitioner on the road telling him further that he should vacate the residential quarter within 48 hours on receipt of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the impugned termination order as in Annexure 'M' to the writ petition, the present writ petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition.