Manipur High Court
Shri Thongam Sanatomba Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 10 May, 2021
Digitally
Yumk signed by
Yumkham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR : AT IMPHAL
ham Rother
Date:
Rother 2021.05.10
14:39:47
+05'30' W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019
Shri Thongam Sanatomba Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Th.
Ibochouba Singh, a resident of Pombikhok Village, P.O. Moirang &
P.S. Kumbi, Bishnupur District, Manipur-795133.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary, Education(S), Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
2. The Director, Education(S), Govt. of Manipur, Lamphelpat,
Imphal -795004.
3. The Zonal Education Officer, Zone-IV(B), Govt. of Manipur,
Bishnupur, P.O & P.S. Bishnupur, Pin-795133.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
For the petitioner :: Smt. G. Pushpa, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Shri Th. Vashum, Govt. Advocate.
Date of Hearing :: 27-04-2021
Date of Judgment & Order :: 10-05-2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Ms. G. Pushpa, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents.
[2] By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuing a direction to the respondents to include the name of the
petitioner in the list of employees of Pombikhok Government Aided
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 1
Junior High School so as to consider his appointment to the post of
Hindi Matriculate Teacher.
[3.1] According to the petitioner, he is a Graduate in English
(Honours) as well as a Graduate in Hindi and is eligible for appointment
as a Matriculate Teacher in Hindi. He was initially engaged as an
Under Graduate Teacher at Pombikhok Government Aided Junior High
School (hereinafter referred to as "the School") on the
recommendation of the School Management Committee (hereinafter
referred to as "the Committee") and his engagement was approved as
an unapproved teacher in the said School vide order dated 20-01-2014
issued by the Secretary of the Committee.
[3.2] While the petitioner was working in that capacity, the
Committee issued an order dated 02-03-2014 allowing him to pursue
further study by granting study leave and the period of study leave was
extended till 31-08-2015 vide order dated 26-12-2014 issued by the
Committee. Sometime in the year 2016, the petitioner learnt from the
reliable sources that the office of the Secretary of the Committee of the
School submitted the details and particulars of Shri Kh. Dhanajit Singh,
son of the then ZEO, for appointment to the post of Hindi Matriculate
Teacher. As no concrete information about it was available with him,
the petitioner filed an application dated 12-05-2016 under the RTI for
furnishing information as regards the conduct of a DPC which was kept
in cold storage for some months which compelled the petitioner to
prefer a RTI Appeal dated 26-08-2016. The Addl. Director of Education
(S)/ SPIO, Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 10-10-2016 to
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 2
the petitioner furnishing the information that the DPC was held on 26-
09-2016 and that although the result thereof had been declared, the
appointment order had not been issued, as the Committee was non-
functional due to pending Court case. On coming to know about the
illegal DPC being held, the petitioner got a legal notice dated 22-10-
2016 being sent by his Advocate.
[3.3] The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.139 of
2017 wherein this Court passed an interim order dated 22-02-2017
directing that no appointment should be made in terms of the impugned
notice dated 12-09-2015 till the returnable date which was extended
from time to time by this Court. In spite of the said interim order being
passed by this Court, the State Government prepared the pay and
allowances under the name of Shri Kh. Dhanajit Singh which was
brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner by way of filing Misc.
Case No.105 of 2017. Ultimately, with the interference of this Court, the
Government of Manipur had to recover the money from Shri Kh.
Dhanajit Singh.
[3.4] During the pendency of the WP(C) No.137 of 2017, the State
Government issued a Notification dated 30-11-2018 to the effect that a
meeting of the State Level Selection Committee for appointment of un-
approved teacher/ staff against the vacancies caused by retirement/
resignation/ new creation posts in Aided Schools would be held at the
office chamber of the Director of Education(S), Lamphelpat from 10:00
am daily as per schedule mentioned therein. As per the said
Notification, the date of DPC for filling up one post of Hindi Matriculate
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 3
Teacher (MHT) with respect to the School was to be held on 18-12-
2018. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.1175 of 2018
seeking for a direction to allow the petitioner to take part in the DPC but
it became infructuous as the Government Advocate informed the Court
that the proposed meeting of the DPC had been cancelled. Till date, no
DPC has been held.
[3.5] In the meantime, a notice dated 08-01-2018 was issued by
the Director of Education(S), Manipur inviting claims and objections
from the concerned parties. At the time of issuing the said notice dated
08-01-2018, the Committee of the School was lying non-functional as
the appointment of the Secretary and President thereof could not be
finalized in view of the interim order dated 12-02-2016 passed by this
Court in WP(C) No.114 of 2016. As the Committee was non-functional,
the name of the petitioner could not be included in the list of Teacher
(unapproved) till the date of filing the writ petition and the Committee
continued to remain non-functional. The State Government was to take
steps for filling up the vacant posts in respect of the Government Aided
Schools vide Notification dated 08-01-2018. Only on the basis of the
disposal of the WP(C) No.114 of 2016 vide interim order dated 17-07-
2018, a Memorandum dated 06-10-2018 was issued by the office of the
ZEO appointing respondent Nos.5 & 6 as the Chairman and Secretary
of the Committee. However, the said Memorandum had been stayed
vide order dated 14-11-2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1033 of
2018 and therefore, the Committee continued to remain non-functional.
Hence the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 4
[4] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 & 2, it
has been stated that the vacant post in respect of Hindi Matriculate
Teacher had not been filled up. It has further been stated that the
appointment of unapproved teacher is a matter of the Committee of the
School and since the appointing authority of an employee of the School
is the Secretary of the Committee, the respondents have nothing to do
with it. The respondents were not aware of the appointment of the
petitioner as unapproved teacher and the inclusion of his name in the
list of the School was subject to the submission of necessary proposal
by the Committee. Moreover, the consideration of the claim of the
petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition being
WP(C) No.139 of 2017 which is still pending for disposal by this Court.
[5] In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner
that this Court while issuing notice to the respondent, passed an order
dated 28-03-2019 directing that the post of Hindi Teacher of the School
should not be filled up till the returnable date which remains in
operation. As regards his appointment, it has been stated by the
petitioner that it has been approved by the Circle, DI as is evident from
the resolution of the Committee in its meeting held on 31-07-2020.
[6] What do the expressions "approved teacher" and "un-
approved teacher" mean ? They appear to have not been expressly
defined in the Manipur Education Code, 1982. Admittedly, they have
arisen in the context of the Government Aided Private Schools. What
does the expression "Government Aided Private Schools" mean ? It
is nothing but the Private Schools which do receive grant-in-aid from
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 5
the State Government for running them systematically and effectively in
public interest and they are governed by the provisions of the Manipur
Education Code, 1982. From some of the cases which came up before
this Court in the recent past, the expression "un-approved teacher"
can be categorized into two groups-one, the teachers of a Private
School who were appointed by the Committee and would continue to
be the teachers at the time when the School is approved by the State
Government for providing grant-in-aid or in other words, when the
School is converted into a Government Aided Private School and two,
after a Private School being approved for providing grant-in-aid or
being converted into a Government Aided Private School, a new
teacher appointed by the Committee after a serving teacher of the
School having retired or resigned or one or more teachers appointed by
the Committee in view of the increase in the number of students or
opening of new subjects. Such appointment requires the prior
permission of the Director of Education (S), Manipur and after such a
teacher being appointed, he is considered to be an un-approved
teacher. It may be noted that the salary of an un-approved teacher will
have to be paid by the School authority. The expression "approved
teacher" means a teacher who is appointed from amongst the un-
approved teacher or the senior most un-approved teacher against the
posts sanctioned by the State Government on the basis of a
recommendation of a DPC. The sanctioned posts are those posts
created by the State Government for a particular School depending
upon certain factors including the number of students on roll and the
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 6
subjects offered therein. The salary of an approved teacher is paid by
the State Government. An un-approved teacher appointed in the
manner as has been stated hereinabove with the prior permission of
the Director of Education(S), Manipur does not become automatically
an approved teacher, as long as he or she is not appointed against the
posts sanctioned/ created by the State Government. An approved
teacher is as good as a Government employee/ teacher, so far as his
salary is concerned. A Government School teacher draws a salary of
about Rs.25000/- per month and similarly, an approved teacher may
have drawn a similar amount as the salary. A graduate teacher may
have drawn a higher salary than the said amount being drawn by an
under graduate teacher. But in view of the ground reality prevailing in
the State, certain allegations appear to have surfaced as regards the
salary amount being paid by the School authority, so far as the
Government Aided Private Schools are concerned. As seen from the
above, the teachers of a Government Aided Private Schools are of two
kinds-one, approved teachers and two, un-approved teachers. The
salary of an un-approved teacher is nominal to be paid by the School
authority, as compared to the salary to be drawn by an approved
teacher. The allegation is that the exact salary amount sanctioned by
the State Government for the approved teachers, is not paid to them.
The total amount received by the School authority towards the salary of
the approved teachers, is used for equal payment of salary to all the
teachers consisting of approved and un-approved teachers. Be that as
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 7
it may, this Court cannot take cognizance of it in the absence of
material documents.
[7] In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as an un-
approved teacher, as his appointment is alleged to have been
approved by the State Government. His grievance is that at the time
when the list of employees of the School [both approved and un-
approved] was sent to the State Government, his name was not
included with the result that when a DPC was held for appointment of a
Hindi Matriculate Teacher against the post vacated by Shri Th.
Ibochaoba Singh who retired on attaining the age of superannuation,
he was not considered and on the contrary, Shri Kh. Dhanajit Singh,
son of a ZEO was considered and recommended. The petitioner
questioned it and in view of the order passed by this Court, the
appointment of Shri Kh. Dhanajit Singh could not be materialized and
the amount drawn by him was recovered by the State Government.
When the Director of Education(S), Manipur issued a notice dated 08-
01-2018 inviting claims and objections for inclusion in the list, the
Committee of the School was non-functional due to litigation pending
before the Court and therefore, the error could not be rectified at all.
The further grievance of the petitioner is that in the event of his name
not being included in the list of teachers, he will not get the opportunity
of being considered for appointment as the Hindi Matriculate Teacher
as and when the DPC is held for that purpose. What is the procedure
prescribed in law to be followed for inclusion in the list of teachers
maintained by the State Government ? In terms of the stand taken by
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 8
the State Government, it is the Committee of the School which has to
furnish the list of its employees [approved and un-approved] to the
State Government, on the basis of which the State Government shall
prepare a consolidated list, which can be used at the time when the
DPC is held for appointment against the sanctioned posts. In order to
finalise such a consolidated list, the notice dated 08-01-2018 was
issued by the Director of Education(S), Manipur inviting claims and
objections. If that be the case, no direction can be issued to the State
Government to include the name of the petitioner automatically, unless
his name is proposed or recommended by the Committee but it is not
clear to this Court as to whether the Committee of the School has
started functioning or not. Had the name of the petitioner been included
in the list of employees earlier furnished by the Committee to the State
Government, the present controversy would not have arisen at all. In
fact, it is the fault of the Committee for having not done so and the
reason why it has not been done so by it is best known to it. The
petitioner has suffered hardship and humiliation for some years for no
fault of his compelling him to approach this Court again and again for
redressal of his grievance. The petitioner cannot be left with no remedy
at all and in fact, he being an employee of the School, he is entitled to
his name being included in the list of employees of the School.
[8] In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed
of with the directions:
(a) If the Committee of the School has started functioning, the
petitioner shall submit an application to the Committee with a
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 9
request to include his name in the list of employees of the
School within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment and order and in the event of such an
application being received by the Committee, it shall submit
a revised list of employees of the School including the name
of the petitioner to the State Government and in particular,
the Director of Education(S), Manipur within two weeks from
the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner;
(b) If the Committee of the School remains still non-functional
due to litigation, the petitioner can submit such an application
to the Headmaster of the School within a week as aforesaid
in the direction (a) and in the event of such an application
being received by the Headmaster, he/ she shall submit the
revised list of employees of the School including the name of
the petitioner to the State Government and in particular, the
Director of Education(S), Manipur within two weeks from the
date of receipt of the application from the petitioner;
(c) After the receipt of a revised list of employees of the School
either from the Committee or the Headmaster of the School,
the Director of Education(S), Manipur or his subordinate
officers shall incorporate the same in its consolidated list
reflecting the name of the petitioner therein within a month
from the date of receipt of a revised list of employees from
the Committee or the Headmaster of the School so that the
petitioner can also be considered for appointment as the
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 10
Hindi Matriculate Teacher in the School, as and when DPC is
held by the State Government.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2019 Page 11
