Back
2024 Supreme(Megh) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
S. Vaidyanathan, CJ., W. Diengdoh, J.
Sengbreezbirth N Marak - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
PIL No. 12 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Mr. S. Deb, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mrs. T.Yangki B, AAG with Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA, for the Respondents
Public interest litigations cannot challenge service matters unless the petitioner is directly aggrieved and statutory violations are clearly established.
Headnote:
Education - Public Interest Litigation - Right to Education Act, 2009; NCTE Notification - The court emphasized the necessity of teacher qualifications under the Right to Education Act and NCTE guidelines, ruling that public interest litigations are not maintainable in service matters unless specific statutory violations are demonstrated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the appointment of teachers lacking the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET) qualification, arguing that this undermines educational standards and violates the Right to Education Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked standing as a stranger to the service matter and that the appointments were made in accordance with applicable notifications, thus dismissing the petition.
Issues: Whether a public interest litigation can challenge teacher appointments in service matters and if the appointments complied with statutory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: Public interest litigations are not maintainable in service matters unless the petitioner is an aggrieved party and can demonstrate a violation of statutory provisions.
Result: The petition was dismissed due to lack of maintainability.
ORDER
S. Vaidyanathan, CJ. - 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 r
