Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 162 (MEG)

Siljon A. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2022-06-20

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner herein who is said to be the Headmaster of Rongsai Upgraded SSA U.P. School, Pedaldoba, West Garo Hills was terminated from service on 24.08.2017 vide communication of even date by the Chairperson of the Managing Committee of the said school. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-6 to this petition. Being highly aggrieved by the said communication and action taken against him, the petitioner has accordingly approached this Court with this instant petition. 2. Heard Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that under the initiative of the petitioner with the help of the village elders, an Upper Primary School was established in the village and a Managing Committee was constituted to manage the said school named and styled as Rongsai Upgraded U.P. School. The petitioner was also appointed as Head Teacher of the said school vide appointment order dated 18.01.2000 which order was issued by Shri Francis Sangma the then Secretary of the school. Annexure-2 to the petition is a copy of the said appointment order. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner having joined the post being paid a consolidated pay of Rs. 3000/- per month which salary was increased from time to time and as on 2017 the same being Rs. 20,493/-, he continued to be the Head Teacher without any complaint or adverse remarks against him. 4. On the school being upgraded under the Sarva Shiksha Abhuiyan (SSA) scheme, the petitioner as Headmaster has also submitted that format of teacher's profile under Tikrikilla block, 2008-09, the list of the existing teachers of Rongsai SSA UP School, contains the names of the petitioner as headmaster and among the five names listed, the name of respondent No.7 was also included as an assistant teacher. The appointment of the teachers has been duly approved by the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer-cum- Joint District Mission Co-Ordinator, Dadenggre, West Garo Hills District. 5. The petitioner was however shocked and surprised to receive the impugned letter dated 24.08.2017 issued by the Chairperson Rongsai SSA U.P. School whereby his services as Acting Headmaster was terminated. 6. The appointment of the teachers has been duly approved by the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer-cum- Joint District Mission Co-Ordinator, Dadenggre, West Garo Hills District. 5. The petitioner was however shocked and surprised to receive the impugned letter dated 24.08.2017 issued by the Chairperson Rongsai SSA U.P. School whereby his services as Acting Headmaster was terminated. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner having no alternative, had addressed a letter to the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer-cum- Joint District Mission Co-Ordinator, Dadenggre, dated 06.09.2017 with a prayer for kind interference of the office and to direct the Secretary or the Managing Committed of the school to revoke the said termination letter and also to allow the petitioner to continue in service. However, with no favourable response forthcoming, the petitioner has accordingly approached this Court as aforesaid. 7. Mr. Hazarika has further submitted that the petitioner who is the founder-member and Headmaster of the said Rongsai SSA U.P. School since the year 2000 has been in continuous service for more than 16 years and having served the school with dedication and devotion towards his duty, there was no complain or adverse remarks against him and as such, the impugned termination order has been passed arbitrarily. 8. Another limb of argument advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed in complete violation of the petitioner's right inasmuch as no explanation was called from the petitioner, no prior show cause notice was issued to him and no enquiry was also conducted against him to enable him to answer to the charges made as indicated in the impugned order. 9. Even otherwise, the school of the petitioner being a recognized private school, the provision of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 is applicable and sub-Section 2 of Section 9 of the said Act provides that '...(2) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority.' and this provision has been violated inasmuch as the prior approval of the competent authority who is the Joint District Mission Co-Ordinator, Dadenggre has not been obtained by the school authorities before termination of the services of the petitioner herein, submits the learned counsel. 10. 10. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court may be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned termination order and to direct the school authorities to re-instate the petitioner as Headmaster of the said school. It is also submitted that since the petitioner has not been paid his salary from the month of March, 2017 till September 2017 and continuing, he is not demanding arrear salary to be paid to him except for the period he was on duty, that is March to September 2017 and the remaining period till date may be considered as Leave Without Pay. 11. Mr. B.K. Biswa, learned counsel for the respondents No. 7 to 9 has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for which the Managing Committee has come to the decision to terminate his services which was accordingly done so by way of the impugned order. However, it is fairly submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the said allegation. 12. Mr. Biswa has also submitted that the averments made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 7 who is the present Headmistress of the school as regard her qualification is not based on facts since she is found to be qualified to be appointed as the Headmistress. 13. Mr. R. Gurung, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 6 has submitted that apparently the respondent/Managing Committee while passing the impugned termination order has not complied with the provisions of law as pointed out by the petitioner, particularly the provision of sub-section 2 of Section 9 of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981. However, it is also noticed that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent No. 6 (Joint District Mission Co-Ordinator, Dadenggre) and as such it is further submitted that the attention of respondent No. 6 may be directed to the said representation and to dispose it in accordance with law. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, on the face of it, this petition merits consideration as the impugned termination order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the allegations made therein. 14. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, on the face of it, this petition merits consideration as the impugned termination order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the allegations made therein. The proper procedure has not been followed by the respondent/Managing Committee and however genuine the grounds for termination may be, for which this Court may not enter into discussion of the facts therein, the principles of natural justice having been violated, the impugned termination order has to be set aside and quashed. 15. The contention of the respondents No. 7 to 9 as regard the eligibility of the respondent No. 7 to hold the post of Headmistress of the said school cannot be looked into by this Court at this juncture since the main issue involved is to the legality or illegality of the said impugned order and the same having been found to have been issued sans due procedure and in violation of the natural principle of justice, this issue does not merit consideration. 16. Again, the proposition of the learned Addl. Sr. GA that the respondent No. 6 be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner cannot be sustained at this point of time since a number of years have elapsed and apparently the respondent No. 6 has failed to perform his duty in this regard. Be that as it may, since this Court has held that the impugned order cannot be maintained, the submission made is not acceptable. 17. In the overall consideration of the matter, the impugned termination order dated 24.08.2017 issued upon the petitioner by the Chairperson, Rongsai SSA U.P. School, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya is hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner is hereby directed to be reinstated in service. 18. As prayed for, the respondents are also directed to pay the salary due and payable to the petitioner for the month of March to September 2017 and the period from the month of October till the time the petitioner is put back in office can be treated as leave without pay. 19. With the above, this petition is disposed of. No costs.