CLAMINGSTAR NONGSIEJ Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
LAWS(MEGH)-2021-3-19
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on March 19,2021

Clamingstar Nongsiej Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MEGHALAYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

H.S.Thangkhiew,J. - (1.) The facts as set out in the instant writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher by the Managing Committee of the Phlangkynshi Upper Primary School on 01.03.2008, and was regularly working therein, and in the year 2012, was also allowed to attend the refresher course conducted by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The grievance as set forth is that in the month of March, 2015, though his services were still retained, no salary was paid by the Managing Committee (Respondent No. 4), and though the writ petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the authorities no substantial action was taken and as such, he is compelled to come before this Court by way of this instant writ application.
(2.) Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the school is governed by the Meghalaya School Education Act 1981, and as such appointments and any other matters are to be made under the provisions of the said Act. Further, he submits that though the petitioner was discharging his duties on being appointed, he was never given an appointment letter by the respondent No. 4, which he contends has been retained in their possession. He submits that in spite of several representations and due to the indifferent attitude of the respondent No. 4, no relief was forthcoming. He therefore prays that a mandamus be issued to direct the respondent No. 4 to allow the petitioner to resume his duties and further quash the appointment of the respondent No. 5 who was appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2015 issued by the Managing Committee.
(3.) Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, submits that though this matter has been brought to the notice of the respondents, and that the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer (Respondent No. 3) had initiated action by calling upon the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 29th November, 2016 to come before his office so that the matter could be examined, no response was received. This submission is enforced by the statements made in Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3. He further submits that in the matter of appointment of such teachers, the appointing authority is the school Managing Committee, and only approval is sought from the official respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.