Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 279 (MEG)

Moushomiara Begum v. State of Meghalaya

2022-10-20

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - The order proposed to be made herein meets with the approval of the appearing parties, particularly the appellant, the sixth respondent-writ petitioner and even the State. 2. The appellant herein was not a party to the proceedings instituted by the sixth respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining of non-receipt of his salary despite continuing in the post of a sanctioned teacher in a government-aided school in the Garo Hills. The Single Bench directed a report to be furnished by the State Project Director. The appellant claims that the State Project Director may have consulted the managing committee of the relevant school, but without reference to the appellant herein submitted a report to the effect that the appellant herein enjoyed the benefits of the government-sanctioned salary without occupying a sanctioned post. 3. The appellant submits that in previous writ proceedings instituted by the appellant in this Court, an order has been made directing the State to pay the salary due to the appellant upon this Court observing that the appellant occupied a sanctioned post. The appellant submits that in the light of the previous order of this Court and the same having been made in the presence of the State and the managing committee of the relevant school, the order impugned herein could not have been passed. The appellant insinuates that the managing committee of the school may have connived with the sixth respondent for obtaining an order to the prejudice of the appellant and, in particular, to negate the order obtained by the appellant in her favour. 4. The appeal was instituted with leave since the appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the Single Bench. There is no doubt that the impugned order prejudices the appellant. It is elementary that when the Court proposes to pass an order which may have an adverse impact on any person, such person must be made aware of the proceedings and given an opportunity to defend his position before an order adversely affecting such person is passed. 5. In the present case, the appellant was neither a party to the proceedings nor was given notice thereof for the appellant to bring to the notice of the Single Bench the order that the appellant obtained in her favour in the appellant's previously instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the present case, the appellant was neither a party to the proceedings nor was given notice thereof for the appellant to bring to the notice of the Single Bench the order that the appellant obtained in her favour in the appellant's previously instituted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Both the State and the school failed to disclose a material fact that may have altered the result of the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the order impugned cannot be sustained as the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is not necessary to go into the rival contentions at this stage since the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. The appellant herein is added as a respondent to the writ petition being WP (C) No.16 of 2019. The appellant is afforded a fortnight's time to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. 7. The writ petition is revived and is restored to the board of the Single Bench for it to be adjudicated afresh upon affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, including the appellant who has now been added as a respondent to the proceedings. 8. The observations herein are for the limited purpose of the present order and it will be open to the Single Bench to arrive at an appropriate conclusion upon assessing the facts and without being overly inhibited by this order or any observation herein. 9. WA No.34 of 2022 is disposed of. 10. There will be no order as to costs.