IMPORTANT POINT
The Act was interpreted to secure the services of teachers appointed before its commencement, and teachers appointed after the Act came into force and posted in Non-Government Schools were not eligible to be treated as Government Teachers.

JUDGMENT

1. These three writ petitions being filed on the same cause of action and on similar facts, will be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners in these petitions are stated to have been appointed by the competent authority in their respective Sub-Divisions sometime in the year 1995 to 1997, after being successful in the selection process conducted by the state respondents and on their appointment, the petitioners were posted in different schools run and managed by Religious Institutions and Minority Communities. Prior to their appointments, the State of Meghalaya for the purpose of taking over the primary schools run by the District Councils in the state, had enacted an Act known as the Meghalaya (Taking Over of the DCLP Schools) Act, 1993 which came into force on 02-06-1994. For implementation of this Act, the State Government had constituted a committee to examine the list of District Council Lower Primary (DCLP) Schools in the state, deemed to have been taken over and vest with the State Government and while constituting the said committee, 24-09-1982 was fixed as a cut-off date for calculating the length of service of the LP School Teachers as Government Teachers in the Jowai Autonomous District. The committee by its report recommended that the LP School Teachers be placed into two categories, those appointed by the District Council as well as the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Administrator/Assistant Administrator and posted in DCLP Schools were to be treated as Government Teachers, whereas those appointed by the same authority but posted in Religious/Minority Institutions shall be treated as Non-Government LP School Teachers.

3. In WP(C). No. 203 of 2015, there are altogether 11 petitioners and they are stated to have been appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Amlarem Sub-Division sometime in the year 1995 after being duly selected. In WP(C). No. 204 of 2015, there are 38 petitioners, all are matriculates and some also possess the added qualification of having passed the District Elementary Education Eligibility Test and some have passed the Basic Teachers Training/Junior Basic Training. They are stated to have been appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jowai Sadar Sub-Division in the years 1995 to 1997 after being duly selected. The petitioners in WP(C). No. 205 of 2015 are 31 in number and possess similar qualifications such as the petitioners in the other writ petitions. These petitioners have been stated to be appointed by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Khliehriat Sub-Division sometime in the year 1995, after being duly selected. It is to be noted that after the selection, the petitioners in all these three writ petitions were posted in different schools run and managed by Religious Institutions and Minority Communities.

4. Before coming to the questions that have been raised in the instant writ petitions, it is important to note that the issues in these petitions were before this Court in three writ petitions fronted by the same writ petitioners herein, which were numbered as WP(C). No. 301, 302 and 303 of 2013. This Court by order dated 03-07-2014, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petitions by allowing the writ petitioners therein, to prefer fresh representations mentioning all the relevant facts for consideration by the state respondents. Thereafter, under the Orders of the Governor by Notification dated 24-09-2014, a Committee was constituted to examine the grievances of the petitioners, which after hearing the petitioners and recording their statements and examination of relevant documents and records, submitted a report and findings dated 21-10-2014 to the respondent No.2, holding the petitioners ineligible to be given the status of Government L.P. School Teachers.

5. The state respondents on receipt of the detailed report, then vide order dated 04-05-2015, rejected the representations and while rejecting