High Court of Meghalaya
Aynul Hoque vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors on 14 February, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WA No.54/2023
Date of Order: 14.02.2024
Aynul Hoque Vs. State of Meghalaya & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT
(Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 20.11.2023 passed in WP (C) No.363 of 2023.
Brief facts in nutshell:
2. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary School on contractual basis in
Singimari Government L.P. School on 16.06.2011 against the vacant
post, pursuant to which, he had joined duty on 17.06.2011 and the same
had been extended from time to time. To the shock and surprise, all of a
sudden, the contractual employment was discontinued by an order dated
01.07.2023, by referring to the order of this Court dated 02.11.2017 on
the ground that the appellant is a tainted teacher;
2.1. Aggrieved by such discontinuation, the Writ Petitioner had
knocked at the doors of this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(C)
No.253 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court on 22.08.2023,
permitting the appellant to file a representation before R2, by raising
factual and legal pleas available to him within two weeks, consequent to
such direction, a representation was filed by the appellant. However, the
2nd respondent justified the order of termination and rejected the
representation of the appellant on 26.09.2023;
2.2. The order dated 26.09.2023 was questioned by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.363 of 2023
and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2023,
on the ground that the representation submitted by the Writ
Petitioner/appellant herein had been considered in detail and that as per
the reports of CBI and HLSC, there were 10 candidates who have been
declared as tainted and the Writ Petitioner/ Appellant is one among
them.
3. The main plea advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that though there was a reference to the order dated
02.11.2017 of this Court, the said order was not brought to the attention
of the parties concerned. He also drew the attention of this Court to the
interim order made in WP (C) No.253 of 2019 dated 04.12.2019
directing the authorities to continue the writ petitioner to discharge his
duties in the post of Assistant Teacher on usual payment. It is submitted
by the appellant that the order of termination is arbitrary and
discriminatory and till a regular appointment is made against the post of
Assistant Teacher, he may be permitted to continue in service and such
averment made in the writ petition has been negatived by the learned
Single Judge.
4. On a perusal of the order impugned in the Writ Petition and
the order of the learned Single Judge, it is seen that on the basis of the
advertisement dated 10.12.2008, the Writ Petitioner / appellant herein
and others had participated in the selection process for appointment to
the post of Assistant Teacher in Government L.P. School. However,
there was a dispute over the method of selection and based on a
complaint against the selection process, a detailed inquiry was conducted
by the CBI on the directions issued by this Court, by which it was found
that there were certain irregularities taken place. It is not in dispute that
on enquiry, it came to light that the appellant had indulged in certain
unwanted activities along with others and therefore, he was declared to
be a tainted person, thereby the relief sought for by him was not granted.
Even though the Writ Petitioner / appellant has made a hue and cry over
the esoteric attitude of the Official respondent in not disclosing the order
dated 02.11.2017, pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the
order dated 02.11.2017 has got merged with the order impugned herein,
by which, this Court had directed the representation of the Writ
Petitioner / appellant to be considered in accordance with law after
affording due opportunity to the Writ Petitioner / Appellant and the
learned Single Judge has also extracted / incorporated the relevant
portions of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.09.2023 in the order.
5. It is needless to mention here that a Teacher must be beyond
controversy. In this country, teachers are regarded as Guru and Gods /
Goddess and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Nagra
Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, reported in 1997(2) SCC
534, held as under:
".....The quality, competence and character of the
teacher are, therefore, most significant to mould the
institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life
as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities.
10. Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation has
stated that "a teacher cannot be without character. If he
lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher
must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more
from the teacher's own life than they do from books. If
teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their
students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst
them, they will have betrayed them.....
.....Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has stated that "we in our
country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An
Acharya is one whose aachar or conduct is exemplary.
He must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct.
He must inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care
with love of virtue and goodness. ...."
11.It is in this backdrop, therefore, that the Indian
society has elevated the teacher as "Guru Brahma,
Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha". As
Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning,
wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and
women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline
and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges
of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of
learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. ....."
6. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we are of the view
that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any
interference by this Court and Writ Petitioner / Appellant is not entitled
to the relief sought for in the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
14.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"/"ar"
