SHILLONG:
The Meghalaya High Court has set aside a government notification, which seeks to bar teachers in government-aided colleges from taking part in politics.
In its judgment passed on Wednesday, the division bench comprises of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh said, “Thus, for reasons entirely different than as indicated in the impugned judgment, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification of March 23, 2021 is set aside, restoring the position to as it stood immediately prior thereto. The amendment introduced by the notification is found to be in excess of the authority available to the State government and otherwise onerous, unconscionable and
unreasonable.”
“The impact of the amendment on the individual teachers is so overwhelming to the extent it curtails a fundamental legal right and the only choice available to the teacher is, effectively, to give up his livelihood, that the distinction between the post and the person is illusory,” the bench added.
The petition was filed by VPP legislator from Mawlai Brightstarwell Marbaniang and others.
The judgment said by a notification of March 23, 2021, Rules 6 and 7 of the original Rules regarding the conduct and discipline of employees of aided educational institutions in the State were somewhat tweaked.
Prior to the issuance of such publication, Rules 6 and 7 provided as follows: “6. No employee shall offer himself as a candidate for election to a Legislative Body or for holding office of any political organisation except in accordance with provisions of Rule 7: Provided that an employee may seek election as an independent candidate of a panchayat with the previous approval of the managing committee as the case may be but he shall not be entitled to accept any office there under except in accordance with the provision of Rule 7.
“7. Any employee desiring to seek election to Legislative Body or to hold office of any Political Organisation or Local Bodies shall be on compulsory leave without pay from the date of filing his nomination till the announcement of the result by the proper authority and shall be eligible to rejoin his post immediately. In case he is elected, he shall be on compulsory leave without pay from the date of filing his nomination till the termination of his office to which he is elected. Such elected employee shall be allowed to retain alien on his post for a period not exceeding the full term of the elected body to which the employee is so elected. In the event of such employee joining the post against which he had a lien the interim period of absence on compulsory leave will count for notional increment benefits of pay from the date of such re -joining.”
By the notification of March 23, 2021, Rule 7 was completely omitted, the proviso to Rule 6 was also omitted and the words “except in accordance with provisions of Rule 7” appearing at the end of the substantive part of Rule 6 were done away with. Thus, modified Rule 6 of the said Rules, after the notification of March 23, 2021, provided as follows: “6. No employee shall offer himself as a candidate for election to a Legislative Body or for holding office of any political organisation.”
Several assistant professors in government-aided colleges in the State challenged the amendment on the ground that they had been willy-nilly disallowed from holding office in any political organisation or offering their candidature in any election to a public body.
They also prayed for restoration of the old provisions so as to allow them to engage in political activities and contest in elections to legislative and public bodies as well as to posts in political organisations.
The writ petition was allowed but the discussion in the impugned judgment of December 5, 2022 revolves around the concept of “office of profit” which is found in Articles 102(1) and 191(1) of the Constitution. The essence of the judgment is captured in the following paragraph:
“Therefore as per the discussions made hereinabove and taking into account the settled legal position, the petitioners in the considered view of this Court, are not found to hold an Office of Profit, and if , they satisfy the other conditions as laid down in Articles 102(1) and 191(1), cannot be debarred by the
rules as amended from contesting in elections or holding political office,” the bench said.
Apart from the State’s authority to regulate the conduct of teachers in government-aided private colleges, the State also submitted that if it had the authority to make the rules in the first place it must be deemed to have due authority to amend the same.
On this aspect, the State emphasised that even though it is not required to justify the matter of policy behind the amendment, the whole purpose was to insulate government-aided private colleges from political activities so that teachers could concentrate on imparting education and not indulge in politics.