High Court of Meghalaya
Shri Sengbreezbirth N Marak vs State Of Meghalaya on 8 May, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
PIL No.12 of 2023 Reserved on: 13.03.2024
Pronounced on: 08.05.2024
Shri Sengbreezbirth N Marak ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by Chief Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department, Government
of Meghalaya, Shillong.
3. Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. District School Education Officer, East Garo Hills District,
Williamnagar.
5. Smti Phyra G. Momin
6. Smti Barkuish G. Momin
7. Smti Presildha A. Sangma
8. Smti Binamoni M. Sangma
9. Shri Sengwil N. Marak
10. Smti Mayfourlitha Ch. Marak
11. Smti Shelly A. Sangma
12. Smti Swandeshilla N. Marak
13. Smti Nishabell N. Marak
14. Smti Bethshida M. Arengh
15. Shri Banuel Arengh
16. Shri Chegen M. Marak
17. Secretary, School Managing Committee, Rongrenggiri Model
Deficit Secondary School, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar.
18. Secretary, School Managing Committee, United Songsak Deficit
Secondary School, East Garo Hills District, Agalgre.
19. Secretary, School Managing Committee, Mansang Deficit
Secondary School, East Garo Hills District, Mansang.
20. Secretary, School Managing Committee, United Rongjeng Deficit
Secondary School, East Garo Hills District, Rongjeng.
..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Page 1 of 10
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.Deb, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mrs. T.Yangki B, AAG with
Mr. J.N.Rynjah, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present writ petition has been filed by way of Public
Interest Litigation to quash the appointment of teachers, who do not
possess the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) qualification
and to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NCTE‟s notification
dated 23.08.2010 and the Notification dated 01.07.2020 issued by the
Education Department, Government of Meghalaya in letter and spirit.
2. It was the case of the petitioner that education is important
for personal and community success and it develops human personality,
thoughts and prepares people for life experiences, besides helping people
learn how to think about and make a difference in society. It was the
grievance of the petitioner that on account of lack of proper education
standards and qualified teachers in the schools, aspiring students are
unable to get proper education and to pursue higher and technical
education.
3. It was also the case of the petitioner that the Right to
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted with
the aim to provide free and compulsory education to children between 6
and 14 years in India under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. It is
incumbent on the Government and local authorities to ensure timely
admission, attendance and completion of elementary education between
6 and 14 age group.
4. It was urged that this petition was filed to elevate the
standard of education in the State and as per Section 29 of the Act, a
teacher must possess minimum qualifications that are laid down by an
Academic Authority duly authorized by the appropriate Government
vide notification. If a teacher does not possess a minimum qualification,
the person shall not be appointed. There is a categorical stand of the
State Government that the cut-off date for appointment of teachers
without MTET is 23.08.2010 and that no teacher shall be appointed
without MTET thereafter. The petitioner, by referring to Paragraph
No.21 of the affidavit, regarding qualifications obtained by the teachers,
stated that the teachers do not possess requisite qualification and he also
relied upon the notification dated 23.08.2010, which prescribes
qualification, without which, they cannot be considered for appointment
as teachers.
5. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit,
wherein it has been stated that Writ Petition is not maintainable in
service matters in terms of the following judgments of the Supreme
Court:
i) Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and others, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273;
"18. The Constitution of Administrative Tribunal was
necessitated because of the large pendency of cases relating
to service matters in various courts in the country. It was
expected that the setting up of Administrative Tribunals to
deal exclusively in service matters would go a long way in
not only reducing the burden of the Courts but also provide to
the persons covered by the Tribunals speedy relief in respect
of their grievances. The basic idea as evident from the
various provisions of the Act is that the Tribunal should
quickly redress the grievances in relation to service matters.
The definition of "service matters" found in Section 3(q)
shows that in relation to a person, the expression means all
service matters relating to the conditions of his service. The
significance of the word "his" cannot be ignored. Section
3(b) defines the word "application" as an application made
Under Section 19. The latter Section refers to "person
aggrieved". In order to bring a matter before the Tribunal, an
application has to be made and the same can be made only by
a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have already seen
that the word 'order' has been defined in the explanation to
sub-section (1) of Section 19 so that all matters referred to in
Section 3(q) as service matters could be brought before the
Tribunal. If in that context Sections 14 and 15 are read, there
is no doubt that a total stranger to the service concerned
cannot make an application before the Tribunal. If public
interest litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to
be entertained by the Tribunal, the very object of speedy
disposal of service matters would get defeated."
ii) Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655;
"11. About maintainability of the public interest
litigation in service matters except for a writ of quo
warranto, there are series of decisions of this Court laying
down the principles to be followed. It is not seriously
contended that the matter in issue is not a service matter. In
fact, such objection was not raised and agitated before the
High Court. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the
appellant herein was initially appointed and served in the
State Electricity Board as a Member in terms of Section 5(4)
and from among the Members of the Board, considering the
qualifications specified in Sub-section (4), the State
Government, after getting a report from the vigilance
department, appointed him as Chairman of the Board, it is
impermissible to claim that the issue cannot be agitated under
service jurisprudence.
12. We have already pointed out that the person who
approached the High Court by way of a public interest
litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be
considered as a Member or Chairman of the Board but
according to him, he is a Vidyut Shramik Leader. Either
before the High Court or in this Court, he has not placed any
material or highlighted on what way he is suitable and
eligible for that post."
6. It was further stated that the petitioner seeks to quash the
appointment orders issued to the teachers and it was the stand of the
respondents that the Notification mentioned by the petitioner is
applicable to Classes 1 to 8 and the petitioner has not made a specific
averment as to the classes to which teachers have been appointed.
7. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that as per
Notification dated 01.07.2020, MTET is compulsory for the appointment
of teachers to Class I to VIII and not for appointment of teachers to
Class IX & X. Thus, it was argued that this petition is liable to be
dismissed for bereft of details.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner is a stranger to the lis and he is
not an aggrieved person. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
in Dr.Duryodhan Sahu and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and
others (supra), if strangers are allowed to question the appointments
made in the service side by way of PIL, the very object of speedy
disposal in service matters would be definitely defeated. As per the
contention of the respondents, teachers have been appointed pursuant to
the advertisement annexed in the petitioner‟s typeset to teach Class IX &
X, for which, MTET is not compulsory. Though the petitioner has stated
that the recruited teachers have been taking classes below Class IX, there
is no averment or evidence to that effect adduced before this Court.
10. There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the
Supreme Court that a Writ of quo warranto is maintainable, when
appointment is contrary to a statutory provision. A Three Judges Bench
of the Supreme Court in High Court of Gujarat and another vs. Gujarat
Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 712,
categorically held as under:
"22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a
matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset
as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a
writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction
of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a
limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely
makes a public declaration but will not consider the
respective impact of the candidates or other factors which
may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari.
23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when
the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules."
11. Moreover, the respondents have clearly stated in Paragraph
No.14 of the counter affidavit that the teachers, who have been
appointed, will conduct classes for IX & X and not for other classes, for
which, possession of MTET qualification is mandatory. The said
submission is recorded.
12. 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:
"Before answering the question whether the order
terminating the services of the appellant in terms of his
appointment letter is in violation of the Rules or the
principles of natural justice, it is necessary to consider
the need for the education and the place of the teacher in
that behalf. Article 45 of the Constitution enjoins the
State to endeavour to provide free and compulsory
education to all children, till they complete the age of 14
years. The Supreme Court has held that right to
education is a fundamental right and the State is
required to organise education through its agencies or
private institutions in accordance with the law and the
regulations or the scheme. The State has taken care of
service conditions of the teacher and he owes dual
fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a
member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of
India he should always be willing, self disciplined,
dedicated with integrity to remain ever a learner of
knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate
and imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart
education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to
abjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a
spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher
levels in any walk of life nurturing constitutional ideals
enshrined in Article 51 A so as to make the students
responsible citizens of the country. The quality,
competence and character of the teacher are, therefore,
most significant to mould the calibre, character and
capacity of the students for successful working of
democratic 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. ....."
13. In yet another judgment in the case of The Secretary, Sri
Ramakrishna Vidhyalayam High School, Tirupparaithurai,
Tiruchirapalli District Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Special
Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others, reported in
1990 WLR 62, Madras High Court categorically held as follows:
"59. It is very lamentable state of affairs that in
this country, a teacher who was considered as equal to
God, should fall from the high pedestal to the lowest
level. Our scriptures command the students to consider
the teacher as a God (Acharya Devo Bhava). The term
„Acharya‟ in Sanskrit means a person who not only
teaches lessons to students, but also ensures good
conduct of his pupils. The more important part of the
definition is that he shall himself practice what he
preaches. In Sanskrit language, the term „Guru‟ also
means teacher. The syllable "Gu" represents darkness
(symbolishing ignorance). The syllable "Ru" represents
the removal thereof. Thus, a Guru is so called as he
removes the darkness and the ignorance from the minds
of the students. In fact, there is a saying that it is only
with the blessings of a teacher that a person blossoms
into a full man."
14. Finding that the present petition is bereft of particulars, PIL
No.12 of 2023 is dismissed on the ground of maintainability, as PIL is
not maintainable in service matters. However, it is made clear that any
appointment is made contrary to the Rules / Regulations / Notification,
there is no impediment to agitate by way of PIL for issuance of a writ of
Quo Warranto against such appointees.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
08.05.2024
"Lam DR-PS"
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
