Moushomiara Begum vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 606 Meg

      Serial No. 2
      Regular List

                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                             AT SHILLONG
WA No. 34/2022
                                                 Date of Order: 20.10.2022
Moushomiara Begum                     Vs.         State of Meghalaya & ors
Coram:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Appellant                     : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr.Adv with
                                        Mr. A. Syiem, Adv

For the Respondents                   : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl.Sr.GA

Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr.Adv with Ms. M.K. Sah, Adv for R/6 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) 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 the 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. 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.

       (W. Diengdoh)                                       (Sanjib Banerjee)
           Judge                                             Chief Justice

 Meghalaya
20.10.2022
"Lam DR-PS"