Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

W.P.(C) No. 222 of 2016. Case: Homy Grace Nongsiej Vs The State of Meghalaya and Ors.. Meghalaya High Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberW.P.(C) No. 222 of 2016
Party NameHomy Grace Nongsiej Vs The State of Meghalaya and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: S.M. Suna, Adv. and For Respondents: K. Barua, Adv.
JudgesVed Prakash Vaish, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateFebruary 06, 2017
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Order:

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

  1. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayer:

    (i) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quashed the appointment Order No. SDSEO/MKT/PE/APPT/2015/409 dated Mawkyrwat 27.06.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 4 in favour of the Respondent No. 7.

    (ii) a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quashed the recommendation given by the Respondent No. 6 in favour of the Respondent No. 7 and to declare the result of the interview to the post of Assistant Teacher of COG LP School, Rangmaw as per the norms laid down by the NCTE Circular.

  2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 5 on 22nd February, 2016, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher at the Rangmaw Church of God L.P. School. The interview was conducted on 4th March, 2016, result was declared on 11th March, 2016 and the name of respondent No. 7 was recommended.

  3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 7 was appointed as Assistant Teacher at the Rangmaw Church of God L.P. School for 59 days i.e. w.e.f. 16.06.2016 to 13.08.2016 based on the recommendation made by respondent No. 5.

  4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the respondent No. 5 and 6 have not followed the instructions dated 1st April, 2015 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director of School Education and Literacy (Annexure-11) and, therefore, the advertisement issued by respondent No. 5 was illegal.

  5. The respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed the affidavit of Deputy Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong. In the affidavit, the respondents have stated that vide letter No. DSEL/EDL/GA/APPT/15/2014/214, dated 1st April, 2015 issued by Director of School Education and Literacy it was informed to all the District School Education Officer and the Sub-Divisional School Education Officer that appointment of Lower Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers should be as per the NCTE norms.

  6. The respondent No. 5 has also filed affidavit of the Secretary of the Church of God Educational Trust and the relevant paras of the affidavit read as under:

    5. That the answering Respondent No. 5 states that due to oversight, the Trust was not aware of the notification...

To continue reading

Request your trial