The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed 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.
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.
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.
It was urged that the 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, 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.
The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that Petition is not maintainable in service matters in terms of the following judgments of the Supreme Court . 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.
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.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh said that dmittedly, 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 the Court.
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.
Moreover, the respondents have clearly stated in 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.
Finding that the petition is bereft of particulars, PIL is dismissed by the High Court on the ground of maintainability, as PIL is not maintainable in service matters. However, the Court clarified 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.