Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
R.V. More, J.
Probirth D. Marak and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 193, 127, 129, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 and 145 of 2020
Decided On : 05-10-2020
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Article 309 – Section 141 - Order 1, Rule 9 - Rules of 2011 -Rule 16-A - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 23, 2(a) and 2(n) - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017- National Council for Education Act, 1993 - Section 12 A - National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 - Service Rules of 1981 - Rule 4 ,8,9 and 16 (A) - Central Rules of 2010 - Rules 17 and 18 - Right to Education Act, 2009 - Section 23 (2) - State Rules - Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 – Miscellaneous Proceedings - Petitioners are also challenging Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test examination which was held on Since issues involved in above petitions are similar, pleadings are also completed and learned counsel for respective parties agreed for disposal of these petitions at stage of admission, Court have heard them extensively and Court disposing of petitions by common judgment - Whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. – Held, In matter of adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence - State of Meghalaya could have earlier to also conducted MTET examination, however, unfortunately, same was not done and only one opportunity was given to petitioners - At same time Court cannot overlook mandatory provisions of especially first and second proviso thereof. Under first proviso, five years was given to teachers to acquire qualification proviso, period of five years was extended to further four years from –In light of Court mandatory statutory provision, petitioners ought to have acquired essential qualification ,MTET before period prescribed under second proviso - Unfortunately petitioners failed in MTET examination held in therefore, submission cannot be accepted - Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R.V. More, J.
1. By filing above petitions, the petitioners are seeking regularization in service. The petitioners are also challenging the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (for short 'MTET') examination which was held on 31-01-2019. Since the issues involved in the above petitions are similar, the pleadings are also completed and the learned counsel for the respective parties agreed for disposal of these petitions at the stage of admission, I have heard them extensively and I am disposing of the petitions by this common judgment.
2. For convenience, brief facts of the Writ Petition being WP(C). No. 98/2020 are taken into consideration, which are as follows:
3. Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis and were having all the requisite qualification to be appointed as teachers as per requirement of the National Council for Teachers Education (for short 'NCTE') and they are working in such capacity for the period ranging from 2-10 years. Mr. Sangma submitted that the examination for MTET was conducted on 31-01-2019 in different districts of Meghalaya. However, it was found that there was leakage of the question papers before the scheduled date and time of examination. In respect of this leakage, two First Information Report at Tura Police Station also came to be filed. He submitted that there was no progress in the investigations and consequently, the results of the said examination in one Sub-Division namely, Dadenggre has not been declared till date. Mr. Sangma submitted that the entire examination process because of the leakage is vitiated and same should be set aside. Mr. Sangma in support of his arguments relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another Vrs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 614 and Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. Vrs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 236.
Mr. Sangma submitted that the petitioners have served for a period between 1-10 years and they have legitimate expectation that they would be regularized in service considering their vast experience and length of service. Mr. Sangma further contended that t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
