Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 157 (MEG)

Multisha Kharlor v. State of Meghalaya

2022-06-13

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner who is stated to be an Assistant Teacher was appointed in the respondent school on 01-02-2006. Due to certain misunderstandings over the deduction of her salary by the Managing Committee which was protested by her, the village Dorbar concerned excommunicated the petitioner vide excommunication order dated 06-04-2017, and thereafter the School Managing Committee issued the impugned order of termination dated 10-04-2017 which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, on the ground that she had made complaints before the concerned authorities, for non-attendance of school and disagreement to the terms of the School Managing Committee. 2. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner had approached the respondent No. 3 with a representation seeking intervention against the termination of her service on 12-06-2017 and the said respondent referred the matter to the respondent No. 4, asking her to look into the complaints of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, by letter dated 27-10-2017, the Secretary of the respondent school and the petitioner were intimated with regard to the matter with a direction that they try and settle the said matter, but it appears the same did not proceed or yield any result. The petitioner again on 04-12-2017 preferred another representation and the respondent No. 3 again took up the matter but nothing transpired. Thereafter, yet another representation was preferred by the petitioner on 06-11-2018, which met with the same fate. 4. As no action was forthcoming, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court. In the course of the proceedings, after affidavits have been exchanged and when the matter was taken up on 09-03-2022, learned GA for the state respondents produced a communication dated 28th February, 2022 which indicated that an enquiry had been conducted. The enquiry found that the petitioner had been wrongly terminated, and in the findings itself, the respondents No. 6 & 7 had been directed to refund the salary of the petitioner as admissible for the period from 01-09-2013 to 31-12-2016, to revoke the termination order dated 10-04-2017 and reinstate the petitioner into service. The detailed findings of the enquiry have also been filed by respondent No. 3 by annexing a letter dated 04-03-2022, wherein the respondent 6 & 7 had been directed as follows: (copy of the letter dated 04-03-2022 is reproduced herein below for ready reference). 'OFFICE OF THE STATE EDUCATION MISSION AUTHORITY OF MEGHALAYA :::: SHILLONG. The detailed findings of the enquiry have also been filed by respondent No. 3 by annexing a letter dated 04-03-2022, wherein the respondent 6 & 7 had been directed as follows: (copy of the letter dated 04-03-2022 is reproduced herein below for ready reference). 'OFFICE OF THE STATE EDUCATION MISSION AUTHORITY OF MEGHALAYA :::: SHILLONG. No. MEGH/Semam-SSA/AO/CC/59/2019/242, Dated Shillong the 4th March 2022. From: Shri. A. Ch. Marak, I.A.S., State Project Director Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. To : 1. The President, Managing Committee, Umterlen Nongtluh UPS (Respondent No. 6 in WP(C). No. 478 of 2019) 2. The Headman, Umterlen Nongtluh Village (Respondent No. 7 in WP(C). No. 478 of 2019). Subject: Matters related with WP. No. 478 of 2019. Smti. Multisha Kharlor v. State of Meghalaya & others. Ref: No. GA/MHC/C (30)/ 13/265 Dt. 24.02.2022. Sir/Madam, With reference to the subject cited above and letter under reference, I have the honour to state that after examining the records and orders as well as statements of Respondents recorded during the Inquiry held on 2nd March, 2022 related with the deduction of salary of Smti. Multisha Kharlor, Teacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary School, Termination of her service and Excommunication from the village, the following are the findings of the Inquiry: - 1. That the School Managing Committee of Umterlen Nongtluh has violated the order issued by this Office Vide Letters No. MEGH/SEMAM-SSA/AO/42/2013/40 Dated 4.6.2014, in which all Managing Committee are prohibited to deduct of salary of SSA teachers failing which the grant will be withdrawn by the Government. 2. That the School Managing Committee has failed to follow the process of natural justice in the termination of the service of Smti. Multisha Kharlor, Teacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary School. 3. That the School Managing Committee has terminated the service of Smti. Multisha Kharlor, Teacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school without the approval of the competent authority. 4. That the village durbar in connivance with the School Managing Committee of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school has excommunicated Smti. Multisha Kharlor from the village Nongtluh which is against the fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Multisha Kharlor, Teacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school without the approval of the competent authority. 4. That the village durbar in connivance with the School Managing Committee of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school has excommunicated Smti. Multisha Kharlor from the village Nongtluh which is against the fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Therefore, on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry, I hereby direct the School Managing Committee Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school and Village Dorbar of Umterlen Nongtluh to take immediate action as given below: - (i) To refund the salary deducted from Smti. Multisha Kharlor, Tacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school with effect from amounting to 1.9.2013 to 31.12.2016 amounting to Rs.1,96,000/- (Rupees One lakh Ninety-six thousand) only as per undertaking signed on Dt. 2.3.2022. (ii) To revoke the Termination Order Dt. 10.4.2017 and reinstate the service Smti. Multisha Kharlor as Teacher of Umterlen Nongtluh Upper Primary school. (iii) To release the pending salary of Smti. Multisha Kharlor withheld from the date of termination till date. The above direction should be completed expeditiously within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of issue of the letter to avoid withdrawal of the entire grant sanctioned by the Government to the school. Yours faithfully, Sd/- State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan & Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Education Department, Meghalaya, Shillong.' 5. Mr. C.H.Mawlong, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the findings as rendered by respondent No. 3, the grievances of the petitioner has been redressed and as such, he has no submissions to make. 6. Ms. S.Bhattacharjee, learned GA for state respondents No. 1-4 has further submitted that the appointment of another teacher in the place of the petitioner when she had been terminated is not maintainable and the same was without due approval and not as per the SSA norms. 7. Mr. S.R.Lyngdoh, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that the appointment of the other teacher in place of the writ petitioner after termination, was due to necessity and the said appointment had been intimated to respondent No. 4, but fairly submits that no approval has been received for the said appointment. 8. 7. Mr. S.R.Lyngdoh, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that the appointment of the other teacher in place of the writ petitioner after termination, was due to necessity and the said appointment had been intimated to respondent No. 4, but fairly submits that no approval has been received for the said appointment. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before this Court, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the findings that have been recorded and the suggestions made by respondent No.3 which has effectively redressed the grievances of the petitioner, nothing is left for further adjudication by this Court and this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondents No. 5 & 6 implement the directions as contained in the communication dated 04-03-2022 within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Consequently, the impugned termination order stands quashed and the petitioner is to be reinstated with all arrear pay and benefits as admissible. 10. With the above noted direction, this matter accordingly stands disposed of.