SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SMIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these writ appeals impugn a common question of law based on somewhat similar facts, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) It appears from averments made in writ appeals that Smit Higher Secondary School was established in 1968 by Smit Village Authority under original name and style "Smit Proceeding High School" for the purpose of imparting education to Class VII and VIII students of village upon grant of permission by Inspector of Schools, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong, in 1969. This school was subsequently renamed as "Smit High School". The School came to be covered under the requirements of Deficit Grant-in-aid Scheme vide order dated 02-03-1983. Later on, the school was upgraded to "Smit Higher Secondary School" from 1999. Writ petitioner (respondent No. 8 herein), claimed to be the senior most Assistant Teacher in the school, therefore, he asserted his right for promotion and appointment as Principal of the school in the event of any such vacancy arising in future. Former Principal of School took voluntary retirement vide letter dated 27-12-2006, w.e.f. 31-03-2007. His application was accepted on 16-01-2007, and thereafter, Management Committee decided to appoint Smt. Drassila Mawroh, (respondent No. 7 herein) as new Principal on the basis of her qualification as MA and B.Ed. Managing Committee also recommended the case for approval of proposal to appoint the said respondent. Thereafter, Joint Director of Higher and Technical Education vide letter dated 12-03-2007, and letter dated 04-05-2007, sought clarification from Inspector of Schools concerned as to why post of Principal of the above school should not be filled by promoting the senior most teacher of school, and in compliance of that letter, Inspector of Schools vide his correspondence dated 17-05-2007, conveyed the said queries to Managing Committee of School. Managing Committee vide letter dated 28-05-2007, forwarded the letter dated 26-05-2007, written by Vice Principal of School in favour of appointment of private respondent No. 7 and showing his unwillingness to become Principal. Joint Director of Higher & Technical Education vide letter dated 30-08-2007, informed Inspector of Schools that if Vice Principal is not willing to take up the post, the selection to the post of Principal should go to teacher who was next in seniority in accordance with deficit grant system governed by Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary Employees Rules, 1965. Non-teaching Staff of the School also expressed resentments against the appointment of private respondent No. 7. Inspector of Schools, however, even before disposing of the representation of non-teaching staffs, granted his approval for appointment of respondent No. 7 as Principal of School. That is how respondent No. 8, herein, filed writ petition questioning appointment of respondent No. 7. The State filed affidavit-in-opposition to justify the order dated 01-04-2011, in granting approval for appointment of respondent No. 7, as Principal of School. Appointment was made on the ground that respondent No. 7 was more qualified having possessed Master Degree with B.Ed, whereas respondent No. 8 had only B.Sc. Degree.

(3.) Learned Single Judge having considered submission on behalf of writ petitioner (respondent No. 8 herein), and writ appellant as well as the State and upon examining documents on record came to conclusion that selection of Principal has to be governed by provisions of amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rule, 1965. Being aggrieved by aforesaid judgment and order, learned counsel for appellant submitted that provisions of 1965 Rule would not govern the selection process because that Act was not adopted by State of Meghalaya in terms of Section 79 of North-Eastern Area (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. It is also his submission that as per provisions of Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969, State of Meghalaya became an autonomous State, therefore, provisions of 1965 Rules are not to apply. Learned counsel also argued on the basis of Section 79 of North-Eastern Area (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, again to submit that 1965 Rules were not specifically adopted. It is also a submission of learned counsel that for selection of Principal in appellant's school, the order of Inspector of Schools dated 08-08-1997, is to apply whereunder Managing Committee of School has been given discretion and liberty to select Principal of its choice.