Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 19.06.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya on 19 June, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:523
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 473 of 2021
Date of Decision: 19.06.2025
Smti. Fulbidora Kharlyngdoh
Aged about 44 years
C/o Shri. Dellinton Shangdiar
R/o Upper New Nongstoin, Block-II,
West Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya-793119
.....Writ Petitioner
- Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by Chief Secretary.
2. Commissioner and Secretary,
Department of Education Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong.
3. Director of Elementary and Mass Education
Meghalaya, Shillong.
4. District School Education Officer, Nongstoin.
5. Union of India represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
New Delhi.
6. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
Represented by Member Secretary,
New Delhi.
......Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
1
2025:MLHC:523Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Dkhar, Adv. vice
Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.
Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, GA.
Ms. S. Shyam, GA. for R 1-4.
Dr. N. Mozika, DGSI with
Ms. R. Fancon, Adv. for R 5.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. This is a case where the petitioner has made a prayer to set aside
and quash the order dated 16.12.2020, whereby her service as Assistant
Teacher in the Langja Government L.P. School was terminated. The second
limb of her prayer is for a direction to the concerned authorities to regularise
her service as the said Assistant Teacher of the said school and finally, to
allow her to face the Meghalaya Teacher Eligibility Test (MTET)
examination by relaxing her age.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a substitute
teacher at Langpih Govt. L.P. School and also at Langja Govt. L.P. School
against a sanctioned post of leave vacancy on a temporary basis for a period
of 59 days w.e.f. 01.07.2007 with due approval of the competent authorities.
Her appointment in this manner was renewed from time to time for every
2
2025:MLHC:523
59 days’ period till her last appointment vide office order, copy of which
was also issued upon the petitioner being Memo No. SDSEON/APPT-
164/2018/1355-60 dated Nongstoin, the 19th October, 2020, such
appointment being valid from 19.10.2020 to 15.12.2020.
3. That the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nongstoin in his letter dated
07.01.2009, had recommended the petitioner to be appointed against a
sanctioned post which was rendered vacant on the voluntary retirement of
the incumbent. However, in view of the coming into effect of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) from
01.04.2010, the condition and criteria for appointment as Assistant Teacher
in Lower and Upper Primary Schools in the State has been notified,
therefore the recommendation was not processed.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner had filed a representation dated
31.05.2016 before the Director of School Education and Literacy,
Meghalaya with a prayer for regularisation of her service as Assistant
Teacher at Langja Government L.P. School, West Khasi Hills District,
Nongstoin. Receiving no response to the said representation, the petitioner
had filed another similar representation on 30.07.2018.
5. The SDSEO vide letter dated 27.11.2018 has made a proposal to
the Director of School Education and Literacy, Meghalaya to consider
3
2025:MLHC:523
regularisation of the services of the petitioner but here too, there seems to
be no response from the concerned authorities.
6. The petitioner was therefore compelled to file a writ petition before
this Court being WP(C) No. 264 of 2019 seeking direction for regularisation
of her service in the said school. This Court vide order dated 22.07.2019
had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the concerned
authority/respondent No. 2 therein to take a decision on the said
representation within two months. Accordingly, the respondent/Director
had disposed the said representation vide order dated 23.11.2019 rejecting
the prayer, but has however, allowed the petitioner to participate in the
selection process as and when such post is advertised.
7. It is also on record that the petitioner has once again filed another
writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No. 487 of 2019 apparently
seeking a direction for regularisation of her services. The writ was soon
disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2021 on the prayer of the petitioner to
withdraw the petition, since in course of such proceedings, she was issued
with the order of termination of service, and as such, the petition has become
infructuous. However, leave was granted to the petitioner to challenge the
said termination order. Hence this petition.
4
2025:MLHC:523
8. Mr. T. Dkhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that
the petitioner was continuously serving as Assistant Teacher for more than
12(twelve) years, which fact was not denied by the respondents, as such,
her service or rather her claimed for regularisation is covered by the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi(3) & Ors reported in (2006)
4 SCC 1, para 53.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel has also cited the case of Blandar
Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya & Ors, wherein vide order dated
19.02.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 188 of 2018, this Court has directed the
authorities concerned to regularise the services of the petitioner therein as
Assistant Teacher on the ground that he has put in more than 25 years of
service.
10. The learned counsel, however, has admitted that the assertion of
the respondents that the petitioner has thereafter taken part in the selection
process which was initiated upon the post of Assistant Teacher being
advertised is correct to the extent that she was called for the personal
interview with the anticipation that her services would be regularised, but
she was never considered for the said post apparently for not having passed
the MTET. She should have been considered taking into account her length
5
2025:MLHC:523
of service as a teacher, the case of Umadevi (supra) being applicable to her,
further submits the learned counsel.
11. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the State respondent Nos.
1-4, in his response, has submitted that this is the third round of litigation
initiated by the petitioner before this Court for the same purpose i.e. for
consideration of her regularisation as Assistant Teacher. Along the way, the
case of the petitioner was considered and representations was attended to
and suitably disposed of, by rejecting her prayer for regularisation.
However, the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time
through writ petition being WP(C) No. 487 of 2019, but the same was
withdrawn as infructuous since by then, her services have been discontinued
vide relevant notifications.
12. The learned GA has also submitted that in this case, the petitioner
has assailed the order of the I/c Sub-Divisional School Education Officer,
Nongstoin dated 19.10.2020, wherein the services of the petitioner as
Assistant Teacher was made valid only with effect from 19.10.2020 to
15.12.2020, and thereafter, her services was not extended any further, which
according to her, amounts to her being terminated from service. However,
it was contended that the petitioner’s last temporarily appointment was only
6
2025:MLHC:523
for a period of 58 days, and such temporary arrangement not being
extended, the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed or regularised.
13. The contention of the petitioner that she was in continuous service
for more than 10 years or so, cannot be accepted as the records wherein her
letters of appointment are found, would reveal that she was appointed purely
on temporary and contractual basis for a period of 59 days at a stretch with
intervals in between, further submits the learned GA.
14. The learned GA has also laid stressed on the fact that pursuant to
the direction of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2019(supra), the petitioner
was allowed to participate in the selection process which was initiated
pursuant to the related advertisement dated 04.06.2020. Having chosen to
take part in such selection process and was even called for personal
interview, she failed to qualify, and as such, since she has not challenged
the said selection process at any point of time, she cannot now approach this
Court with this petition, seeking relief by reverting to a previous situation,
vis-à-vis, her prayer for regularisation.
15. It is also the submission of the learned GA that having participated
in the said selection process and not being selected, the petitioner has lost
her previous rights to claim regularisation of her service on the basis of her
past service, her action being barred by the doctrine of res-judicata and the
7
2025:MLHC:523
principle of estoppel. Not having come before this Court with clean hands,
the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the extraordinary power of this
Court in writ jurisdiction. This petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid
of merits which may be done so, further submits the learned GA.
16. This Court on consideration of the contention and submission
made by the learned counsel for the parties, the respondent Nos. 5 & 6
choosing not to participate in the hearing, the facts and circumstances of the
case of the petitioner as well as that of the State respondents being found
adequately illustrated from the narration made hereinabove, the same need
not be repeated.
17. Without going into unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner
is for regularisation of her service as Assistant Teacher, Langja Government
L.P. School, West Khasi Hills District where she had last served from
19.10.2020 to 15.12.2020.
18. Her services not being extended beyond 15.12.2020, she had
accordingly approached this Court, inter alia, with a prayer seeking
regularisation. However, as could be seen from the records, particularly the
production of the relevant papers pertaining to the selection process initiated
vide advertisement dated 04.06.2020, it is evident that on the said
advertisement, notice being floated calling for applications from eligible
8
2025:MLHC:523
candidates to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher in Lower Primary
Schools and Upper Primary Schools respectively, special consideration was
made as regard the candidature of the petitioner to allow her to participate
in the process. In this connection, it would be proper to reproduce a
communication No. DSEL/EL/GA/MISC-14/PF/2010/558 dated Shillong,
the 19th August, 2020 which is done so herein below as:
“OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
LITERACY, MEGHALAYA ::::: SHILLONGNo. DSEL/EL/GA/MISC-14/PF/2010/558, Dtd. Shillong, the 19thAugust,
2020.
From : Shri. L.S. Lyngdoh,
Dy. Director School Education & Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
To : The Sub-Divisional School Education Officer,
Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills.
Subject : Applications for the post of Asstt. Teacher in Govt. L.P.
School.
Reference : No. SDSEON/APPT/2/2015/270, Dt. 02/07/2020.
Sir,
In reference to the subject and Letter No. cited above, it
is hereby advised that as directed vide Court Order Dt. 11.11.2014 of Smti
Salbiona Dkhar and Govt. Letter No. EDN/CC-30/2019/26, Dt. 01.10.2019
of Smti Fulbidora Kharlyngdoh, the applicants may be allowed to
participate the selection process.
Hence, the applications in Standard Form alongwith
relevant papers of the incumbents are returned herewith for further
necessary action from your end.
Sd/-
Yours faithfully
9
2025:MLHC:523Dy. Director School Education & Literacy,
Meghalaya, Shillong.”
19. In due course, vide office order dated 26.11.2020, the Deputy
Commissioner, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, had constituted the
Interview Board pursuant to the said selection process to select the
successful candidates. It may be mentioned that the authorities concerned
has issued a list of eligible candidates, the name of the petitioner figured at
Serial No. 134. Thereafter, amongst the candidates who were interviewed
for the post on 14.12.2020, the petitioner has also appeared for the said
interview, her attendance being seen at Serial No. 116 of the list.
20. To know the fate of the petitioner as to whether she was successful
or not, this Court is also drawn to the document marked as
‘CLARIFICATION’ annexed with the said affidavit dated 11.04.2025,
wherein in the last para of the same, particular mention has been made to
the case of the petitioner, extract of such is reproduced herein below:
“CLARIFICATION
Under the instructions vide letter No. DSEL/EL/GA/MISC-
14/PF/2010/558, dt. 19.9.2020, the petitioner, Smt. Fulbidora Kharlyngdoh
declared as eligible candidate and allowed to participate the selection
process (appear the interview) for the post of Assistant teacher conducted
during the month of December 2020 but not qualified. Copies enclosed.
Annexure 3, 4 & 5.
Sd/-
I/c Sub-Divisional School Education Officer,
Nongstoin.”
10
2025:MLHC:523
21. Apparently, the petitioner has failed to secure a place as one of the
successful candidates in the merit list, and as such, she could not have been
appointed, her case for regularisation in the light of such subsequent
circumstances cannot be sustained.
22. In view of the above, this Court is convinced that the petitioner
has not been able to make out a case for consideration by this Court. This
petition is found to be devoid of merits and dismissed as such.
23. Petition disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2025.06.19 15:41:59 IST 11