Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 752 (GAU)

Basirjan Begum v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2015-06-12

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2015
Kh. Nobin Singh, J.:-- Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri S. Nepolean, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents, Shri A. Modhuchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Shri H. Ishwarlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the entire DPC proceedings for appointment of a graduate teacher and has prayed for quashing the letter dated 27.01.2015 recommending the respondent No.6 namely Md. Ferozuddin for filling up the said graduate post. 3.1 According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed as assistant undergraduate teacher (unapproved) in the Khergao Junior High School against the additional post created vide Government's order dated 04.04.1986 and her appointment was approved vide order dated 16.04.1987 issued by the Inspector of Schools, I.D. Zone - II, Government of Manipur. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, she was declared as a graduate teacher vide order dated 27.05.2003 issued by the Secretary on the basis of Resolution No.2 dated 23.05.2003 of the School Managing Committee with effect from 11.10.2000. 3.2 Since the petitioner having worked as a graduate teacher with effect from 11.10.2000 and being eligible for appointment as graduate teacher, she submitted a representation dated 25.04.2012 addressed to the respondents No.1 & 2 for appointment by promotion to the post of graduate teacher under the existing Recruitment Rules on the ground that the then Head Mistress of the School namely, Mrs. Janatoon Choudhury was going to retire on superannuation in the month of May, 2012. After Mrs. Janatoon Choudhury having retired vide order dated 08.06.2012, the Zonal Educational Officer, Zone - II addressed a letter dated 12.06.2012 to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur requesting him for a special DPC being arranged to appoint the petitioner as a graduate teacher. 3.3 After the retirement of Mrs. Janatoon Choudhury with effect from 31.05.2012, the petitioner being the senior most approved undergraduate teacher, was given the in-charge of the day to day administration as Head Mistress with effect from 16.06.2012 vide letter dated 16.06.2012 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II. On 15.09.2012, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II informed the Addl. Janatoon Choudhury with effect from 31.05.2012, the petitioner being the senior most approved undergraduate teacher, was given the in-charge of the day to day administration as Head Mistress with effect from 16.06.2012 vide letter dated 16.06.2012 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II. On 15.09.2012, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II informed the Addl. Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur that the petitioner being the senior most teacher of the school, may be declared as Head Mistress of the school since there is no objection from the other 2 (two) approved undergraduate teachers. 3.4 In the meantime, inspections were carried out on 19.03.2012 and 07.04.2012 by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II in respect of the said school and on 25.04.2012, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II informed the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II about the inspection. On the basis of the letter 30.04.2012 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II recommending for dissolution of the School Managing Committee, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone -II issued an order dated 02.05.2012 dissolving the School Managing Committee in public interest. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 02.05.2012, the members of the said School Managing Committee filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.349 of 2012 followed by another writ petition being W.P. (C) No.537 of 2014 filed by the School Managing Committee. Khergao Junior High School which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 19.12.2014 thereby quashing the order dated 02.05.2012/22.05.2012 with liberty being granted to the authorities to take appropriate actions in accordance with law. 3.5 The petitioner came to know that the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - n addressed a letter dated 27.01.2015 to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur submitting a proposal in the formats -1, II, III and IV recommending approval of the respondent No.6's appointment against the graduate post leaving the petitioner behind without any cogent reason. The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 13.02.2015 informing that the meeting of the State Level Selection Committee scheduled to be held from 17.02,2015 to 18.02.2015 should be continued till 10.03.2015, wherein 17.02.2015 was fixed as the date of holding the DPC. The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 13.02.2015 informing that the meeting of the State Level Selection Committee scheduled to be held from 17.02,2015 to 18.02.2015 should be continued till 10.03.2015, wherein 17.02.2015 was fixed as the date of holding the DPC. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ors., (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; M/S DAV College & ors. vs. Regional Provisional Fund Commissioner & ors., 1988 (Supp) SCC 518; Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs. Union of India, (1990) Suppl. SCC 685. Ajit Singh & ors. vs. State of Punjab & ors., (1999) 7 SCC 209 and State of Tarn;. Nadu & ors vs. K. Shyam Sunder & ors., AIR 2011 SC 3470 . 4. The present writ petition is contested by the respondent No.6 by filing an affidav;: wherein it is stated that he joined service as an unapproved graduate teacher vide appointment order dated 22.01.2007 and thereafter, he was appointed as Head Master on in-charge basis vide order dated 02.04.2012 issued by the Secretary. According t: the respondent No.6, in order to fill up 219 vacant posts by way of adjustment from amongst the unapproved teachers, the Administrative Department prepared a cabinet memo whereupon a decision was taken by the cabinet in its meeting held on 13.02.2014 and after the cabinet's decision, the Principal Secretary (Education/S) issued an order dated 20.06.2014 for appointment/adjustment against the existing vacancies. Thereafter. the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - n published a tentative seniority list as on 23.02.2014 wherein the name of the respondent No.6 had figured. It is further stated that so as to finalise the list of unapproved teachers and as instructed by the Director of Education vide its letter dated 15.01.2005, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II addressed a letter dated 16.01.2015 enclosing therewith the prescribed formats to the President of the School Managing Committee requesting him to fill in the formats and after having filled in the formats, the School Managing Committee submitted the same to the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - n who forwarded the same to the Director of Education (S). Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 27.01.2015. Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 27.01.2015. The meetings of the State Level Selection Committee was to be held for appointment/adjustment from the eligible unapproved teachers against the vacant post of 219 caused by the retirement on superannuation pursuant to a policy decision taken by the State Government. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS vs. Jaganath (dead) by LRS, (1994) 1 SCC 1 ; Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 ; Devika Kumbang & ors. vs. State of Assam & ors., 2005 (1) GLT83 and 2011 (4) GLT220. 5. The stand of the State Government indicated in its affidavit is, more or less, in support of the contention raised by the respondent No.6 wherein it is stated that the selection process has been taken by the State Level Selection Committee for appointment/adjustment from the senior most unapproved eligible teachers and it is not a DPC for appointment on promotion from the post of approved undergraduate teacher to approved graduate teacher and therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition is misconceived. It is further stated that since there is no provision for up-gradation of undergraduate teacher to graduate teacher in the Manipur Education Code, the petitioner being an approved undergraduate teacher, cannot be considered for approval as graduate teacher. The respondent No.6 is the only unapproved graduate teacher working in that school and in the prescribed formats called for, pursuant to the Government's order dated 20.06.2014 and the constitution of the State Level Selection Committee, the name of the respondent No.6 is proposed for approval. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the letter dated 27.01.2015 and the writ petition is not sustainable in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Government has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Tulsiram Patel & ors., (198: 3 SCC 398; CSIR & ors. vs. Dr. Ajai Kumar Jain, (2000) 4 SCC 186 and State cy UP & ors. vs. Rajkumar Sharma & ors., (2006) 3 SCC 330 . 6. vs. Tulsiram Patel & ors., (198: 3 SCC 398; CSIR & ors. vs. Dr. Ajai Kumar Jain, (2000) 4 SCC 186 and State cy UP & ors. vs. Rajkumar Sharma & ors., (2006) 3 SCC 330 . 6. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that the then Secretary being the sister o: the respondent No.6 has appointed him with malafide intention and though the responder. No.6 was appointed as Headmaster on in-charge basis, he never attended the office since 16.06.2012. The petitioner was recognised as graduate teacher vide order date; 23.05.2003. It is further stated that the said cabinet memo cannot be construed :: accommodate the respondent No.6 and the order dated 20.06.2014 only provides the method of appointment/recruitment shall be as per rule 4(vii) of the said Code. The-appointment of the petitioner as graduate teacher has been recognised vide order date: 16.07.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P. (C) No.383 of 2(: which is still pending for adjudication by this court. The order dated 22.01.2007 by which the respondent No.6 was appointed as Assistant Teacher is nonest in the eye of law 7. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the term of re erstwhile School Managing Committee has expired and a new School Managing Committee, constituted recently, has filed an affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner wherein it is stated that the respondent No.6 was never appointed as unapproved graduate teacher by the School Managing Committee and moreover, the petitioner being the senior most teacher, was appointed as graduate teacher vide order dated 27.05.2003 which was cancelled vide order dated 28.09.2012 without giving any opportunity of being heard and accordingly, the act of the then Secretary of the School Managing Committee is arbitrary. It is further stated that after constitution of the new School Managing Committee, it has written a letter dated 21.05.2015 to the then Secretary to furnish relevant records in order to find out as to whether the respondent No.6 has been correctly recommended or not. But the then Secretary has refused to furnish the relevant records for the reasons best know to her. 8. But the then Secretary has refused to furnish the relevant records for the reasons best know to her. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary for this court to examine and analyse the provisions of Manipur Education Code, 1982 which are neither the rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution nor have they been enacted by the State Legislature but are only executive instructions regulating the grant-in-aid. "The term "Aided Institution" is defined in Rule (3)(14)(b) of the Chapter left Manipur Education Code and "Aided Institution" means the institution which receives recurring grant-in-aid from the government. Managing Committee: Section n of the Manipur Aided Secondary Schools (Managing Committee) Rule,1975 in Chapter VI of the Manipur Education Code deals with the formation of Managing Committee of Aided Middle and Primary Schools, the formation of which is to be approved by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. Rule 3 empowers the Deputy Inspector of Schools to dissolve and re-constitute ad-hoc Managing Committee and subject thereto, the term of Managing Committee will expire after a period of three years. Rule 19 talks about the duties being assigned to the Managing Committee and Rule 19(v) provides for appointment of persons in connection with the affairs of the schools to the existing rules and to obtain approval of the Deputy Inspector of Schools. Employees Service Rules: Section I in Chapter DC of the Manipur Education Code deals with the rules called the Manipur Aided Schools Employees (Service) Rules. 1978. "Appointing authority" is defined as the School Managing Committee, "Selection Committee" means the Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the grant-in-aid rules. Rule 4 provides that all appointments in an aided school shall be made according to the procedure as laid down in the terms and conditions of grant-in-aid, subject to the final approval of the Education Officers concerned. Rule 7 of Section TV in Chapter IX provides that whenever there is vacancy, it should first be determined for what main subject or subjects of the curriculum the teacher is required, and proficiency in that subject or subjects shall have to be considered in filling up the vacancy. Rules Governing Grant-in-Aid: Section V in Chapter DC deals with the rules governing grant-in-aid. Rule 4(vii) thereof provides that the appointment of teaching staff (including H.MA.H.M) shall be made only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. Rules Governing Grant-in-Aid: Section V in Chapter DC deals with the rules governing grant-in-aid. Rule 4(vii) thereof provides that the appointment of teaching staff (including H.MA.H.M) shall be made only on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. Rule 4(vii)(c) provides that notwithstanding anything contained above, the Govt. shall have the right to constitute a State Level Selection Committee for recommending candidates for appointment in all or any of the aided schools for one or more categories of the posts. The Government shall also have the right to alter the constitution of the Committees mentioned in (ii) above any time. Rules relating to grant-in-aid came to be amended as the Manipur Grant-in-Aid to Schools (1st) Amendment Rules, 1977 vide Notification dated 24.12.1977 and the explanation thereof provides that for the purpose of this rules 'approved teachers, ministerial and Grade - IV staff' shall mean the member of the teaching staff whose appointments have been or are approved from time to time by the Government and such of the ministerial staff including the Grade - IV employees whose services stood confirmed by the respective school Managing Committee on or before 30.09.1976." 9. From the perusal of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, it appears that there are certain stages, in respect of a school, where the State Government plays a vital role in matters of education and they are as under: (a) When a school through its Managing Committee applies for recognition, the Inspector of schools will forward the proposal with a report to the Director, who in turn will submit the same after due scrutiny to the State Government which grants recognition provided the conditions prescribed in rule 8 of the Manipur Non-Government Schools and Colleges Recognition Rules, 1975 are fulfilled. Up to this stage, the role of the State Government is limited; (b) A recognised school may apply, in the prescribed form to the concerned Zonal/ District Officer having jurisdiction over the school, for grant of 'Grant-in-aid' which means financial assistance extended by the Government, from year to year to the school. The Zonal/District Officer shall, on receipt of application, inspect the school and after verifying the facts stated in the application, shall forward the proposal to the Director with his recommendation in favour or against it with reasons justifying thereof. The Director on receipt of such proposal shall scrutinize it and if not satisfied. The Zonal/District Officer shall, on receipt of application, inspect the school and after verifying the facts stated in the application, shall forward the proposal to the Director with his recommendation in favour or against it with reasons justifying thereof. The Director on receipt of such proposal shall scrutinize it and if not satisfied. it will reject it and communicate the same to the school through the Zonal Officer and in other cases, it shall forward to the Government giving satisfaction and availability of funds. The State Government may, after due consideration, sanction grant-in-aid to the School. The quantum of grant-in-aid shall be equal to I00rc expenditure on the salaries and other allowances payable to the approved teachers. ministerial and Grade - IV staff as per scales of pay approved the Government. The aforesaid explanation provides that for the purpose of this rules 'approved teachers ministerial and Grade - IV staff' shall mean the member of the teaching staff whose appointments have been or are approved from time to time by the Government and such of the ministerial staff including the Grade - IV employees whose services stood confirmed by the respective school Managing Committee on or before 30.09.1976. The details as to how the existing teachers or non-teaching staff, at the time c: consideration for grant of grant-in-aid, are to be approved, are silent in the Manipu: Education Code, 1982. From the facts and circumstances of the case including the materials place on record, it appears that the State Government, at the time c: consideration for grant of grant-in-aid, determines/creates number of posts for the teachers/staff for whom it will be able to pay their salaries keeping in mind various factors including ratio of teachers and the students and that the existing teacher staff are considered, against the said posts, for approval. (c) As and when a vacancy arises on account of retirement/ expiry/relinquishment of service of an approved teacher, a new incumbent is to be appointed by the School Managing Committee and approved by the State Government. But the Manipur Education Code, 1982 is silent about the procedure to be followed for purpose of granting approval. (c) As and when a vacancy arises on account of retirement/ expiry/relinquishment of service of an approved teacher, a new incumbent is to be appointed by the School Managing Committee and approved by the State Government. But the Manipur Education Code, 1982 is silent about the procedure to be followed for purpose of granting approval. From the materials on record, the normal procedures for grant of approval appear to be as under: FIRST STEP: (a) It is the School Managing Committee which proposes the name of a teacher from its school to the Zonal Education Officer having jurisdiction over the said school. There is no rule/guidelines as to how a teacher is to be proposed; what are the criteria to be used and in the absence of which it is not clear whether an approved undergraduate teacher who is eligible in terms of qualification, age, "seniority etc., can be proposed for appointment as approved graduate teacher or whether only the unapproved graduate teacher shall be proposed though he/she is junior to others from the point of date of initial appointment by the School Managing Committee, SECOND STEP: (b) The Zonal Education Officer, having jurisdiction over the school concerned, will forward the proposal of the School Managing Committee to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The question arise is to what is to be done by the Zonal Education Officer before forwarding the said proposal. What is his power? Is he bound by the said proposal? Can he reject the proposal and return the same for reconsideration? Is it a mere formality? THIRD STEP: (c) The Director of Education (S) will place the proposal before the Selection Committee. Again, the question arises is as to what is to be done by the Director of Education (S) on the receipt of the said proposal. What is the power of the Director of Education (S)? Is he bound by the said proposal? Can he reject the proposal and return the same for reconsideration by the School Managing Committee? At the time of placing the proposal before the Selection Committee, is he required to give his recommendation? Is it a mere formality? FOURTH STEP: (d) The Selection Committee will consider the proposal and submit its recommendation which will be sent to the School Managing Committee for issuing an appointment order. At the time of placing the proposal before the Selection Committee, is he required to give his recommendation? Is it a mere formality? FOURTH STEP: (d) The Selection Committee will consider the proposal and submit its recommendation which will be sent to the School Managing Committee for issuing an appointment order. The question arises, at this stage, is to what is to be done by the Selection Committee because there is no comparative merits of eligible persons before it and only one name is proposed by the School Managing Committee, Is the Selection Committee bound by the proposal? What is the criteria to be used by the Selection Committee? What are the materials placed before the Selection Committee for comparative assessment of eligible persons? Is this process before the Selection Committee a mere formality and a routine one? FIFTH STEP: (e) On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the School Managing Committee will issue an appointment order. It is not clear as to why an appointment order is required to be issued again, when an order had already been issued by the School Managing Committee at the time of initial appointment as an unapproved teacher. Are the authorities of the Director of Education (S) precluded from issuing order of approval straightway on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee? SIXTH STEP: (f) The appointment of the incumbent by the School Managing Committee is approved by the Inspector of Schools, having jurisdiction over the said school, by issuing an order. It may be noted that there are instances where an unapproved teacher has requested the Zonal Education Officer/Inspector of Schools for grant of approval who on receipt of such request, has forwarded it to the Director of School (S) for holding special DPC. It appears that nobody is fully aware of in this regard. The absence of a clear-cut guidelines as regards the procedure, may be one of the factors which has given rise to many problems including the present one. It is the right time for the State Government to look into the matter and take appropriate decisions so that such problems can be avoided in future. 10. The absence of a clear-cut guidelines as regards the procedure, may be one of the factors which has given rise to many problems including the present one. It is the right time for the State Government to look into the matter and take appropriate decisions so that such problems can be avoided in future. 10. In the present case, the procedure being followed at all stages appears to be as under: FIRST STEP: (a) A cabinet memorandum is prepared soliciting approval of the cabinet for filling up of 219 vacant posts of teachers in grant-in-aid schools in relaxation of ban on direct recruitment. There is no material before this court to show as to how the proposals in respect of the said 219 vacant posts have been made. The Cabinet memorandum proceeds by saying that there is already a proposal for filling up the said vacant posts. The basis indicated in the cabinet memo is that the vacant posts are to be filled up from the senior most unapproved eligible employees of the schools as per recruitment rules. The cabinet approval was given on 13.02.2014 and the State Government issued an order dated 20.06.2014, thereafter, showing the existing vacancies in the Aided Schools and declaring that the method of appointment/recruitment shall be as per rule 4(vii) of the Manipur Grant-in-aid to School Rules, 1977. SECOND STEP: (b) A tentative seniority list as on 23.02.2014 was published by the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II where the name of the respondent No.6 figured. THIRD STEP: (c) On the basis of the Director Education (S)'s letter dated 15.01.2015, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone -It issued a letter dated 16.01.2015 to all concerned enclosing therewith formats to be filled up by the School authorities. FOURTH STEP: (d) The school authorities submitted the duly filled up formats to the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II who in turn forwarded the same to the Director of School (S). FIFTH STEP: (e) The Director of School (S), Government of Manipur places the proposal before the State Level Selection Committee for consideration and recommendation. 11. In the present case, this court is concerned with the third stage as stated above at para 9(c). FIFTH STEP: (e) The Director of School (S), Government of Manipur places the proposal before the State Level Selection Committee for consideration and recommendation. 11. In the present case, this court is concerned with the third stage as stated above at para 9(c). The grievance of the petitioner is that while proposing the name of the respondent No.6 by the School Managing Committee, her name was not considered at all though she was eligible for consideration being the senior most teacher and only the name of the respondent No.6 was proposed because, at that time, his sister was the Secretary of the School Managing Committee. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since there is no criteria to be used by the authorities at various levels including the School Managing Committee, the School Managing Committee ought to have followed the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. The fact that no uniform criteria being laid down/prescribed by the State Government is evident from instances, one of which being that in which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 16.10.1986 issued by the Inspector of Schools, ED, Zone -1 whereby the appointment of an assistant graduate teacher as graduate teacher was approved and the other is the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.208 of 2015 in which, listed along with the present case at one time, a resolution was passed by the School Managing Committee recommending that an undergraduate approved teacher be promoted to the vacant post of graduate teacher. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P Royappa (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit hi it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16." From the said instances it is thus seen that no specific criteria has been prescribed by the State Government and the issue involved herein will have to be considered keeping in mind the fact that mere approval of a teacher by the State Government under the Manipur Education Code, 1982 does not amount to appointment as Government employee and the approved teacher continues to be the employee of the Aided School. There is no master and servant relationship between the approved teacher and the State Government and the State Government's relation is only with the School through its Managing Committee. The only thing is that an approved teacher gets the same pay and allowances as is given to the corresponding government teacher. 12. The learned Government Advocate has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the State Level Selection Committee is the one which has to select teachers from the "senior most unapproved eligible teachers" which is the basis for selection. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel Case (supra) to contend that the maxim "expressum facit cessare taciturn "(when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) will apply to the facts of the present case. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel Case (supra) to contend that the maxim "expressum facit cessare taciturn "(when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) will apply to the facts of the present case. As regards the instances mentioned above, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the same might have been done by mistake which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and to support his contention, he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP vs. Rajkumar Sharma (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that does not confer any right on another person and Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. There can be no doubt about the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said cases but the same will not apply to the facts of the present case. These words "senior most unapproved eligible teachers" seem to have laid down the criteria or the basis but they do not provide a clear-cut criteria/basis at all and one question may arise as to whether an unapproved undergraduate with qualification of a graduate teacher, can be considered for approval of a graduate teacher or whether an unapproved graduate teacher can be considered for approval of a undergraduate teacher because the salary given to an approved undergraduate teacher by the State Government will be higher than the salary given to a graduate teacher by the School Managing Committee. In such situation, there is no reason as to why equal opportunity as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution shall be not given to all qualified teachers. Therefore, in the absence of a detailed rules/guidelines in this regard and till such time when the State Government will lay down a detailed guidelines and considering the various provisions in the Manipur Education Code, 1982. Therefore, in the absence of a detailed rules/guidelines in this regard and till such time when the State Government will lay down a detailed guidelines and considering the various provisions in the Manipur Education Code, 1982. this court is of the considered view that all unapproved teachers of the school concerned shall be considered irrespective of whether they are unapproved undergraduate teachers or unapproved graduate teachers provided they fulfil the requisite qualifications prescribed in the corresponding Recruitment Rules of the State Government and are the senior most from amongst them. 13. The appointment of the petitioner who was initially appointed as assistant undergraduate teacher (unapproved) was approved on 16.04.1987 and she was late: declared as a graduate teacher on 27.05.2003 vide Resolution No.2 dated 23.05.2003 of the School Managing Committee with effect from 11.10.2000. The petitioner being the Senior most approved undergraduate teacher, was given the in-charge of the day to day administration as Head Mistress with effect from 16.06.2012 vide letter dated 16.06.2012 of then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Zone - II. But the said Resolution No.2 was admittedly cancelled after about nine years which the new School Managing Committee has now claimed it to be not proper being violative of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, although the respondent No.6 has claimed that he was appointed as unapproved graduate teacher vide order dated 22.01.2007, it doesn't seem to be correct and from the perusal thereof, it is seen that he was appointed as Assistant teacher. It is not clear as to what the term 'Assistant Teacher' would mean - either undergraduate or graduate teacher or is it different from both of them and as to whether the respondent No.6 has really been appointed as unapproved graduate teacher or not and there is no material on record to show that this ambiguity has been clarified later. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 has submitted that all teachers in the school are assistants to the Head Mistress and therefore, there is nothing wrong in using the term "Assistant Teacher" in the appointment order of the respondent No.6 and according to him, it would mean only a graduate teacher. However, interestingly and to the contrary, the present School Managing Committee has claimed that the respondent No.6 has not been appointed as unapproved graduate teacher at all. However, interestingly and to the contrary, the present School Managing Committee has claimed that the respondent No.6 has not been appointed as unapproved graduate teacher at all. This controversy cannot be resolved in the absence of a clear-cut criteria for selection except by following the doctrine of equal opportunity in matters of employment as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice as the State Government is involved in the process of selection. 14. With the above observations and for the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed and the letter dated 27.01.2015 of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - n and the proceedings of the State Level Selection Committee as regards the Khergao Junior High School (Aided) are quashed and set aside with the following directions: (a) The School Managing Committee shall propose the name of a teacher in the format for appointment as graduate teacher, in the light of the observations made herein above, to the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - n within two weeks; (b) The Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II shall, on receipt of the said proposal, forward the same to the Director of Education (S), Manipur within two weeks; (c) The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur shall, thereafter, place its recommendation before the Selection Committee or the State Level selection Committee, if not yet wound up, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from the Zonal Education Officer, Zone - II; (d) The Selection Committee or the State Level selection Committee shall submit its recommendation to the School Managing Committee, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Director of Education (S)'s recommendation, for issuing an appointment order. There shall be no order as to costs.