WP(C)/609/2025 of BABITDOR HOOJON AND 44 ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 9 April 2026

1. Shri Babitdor Hoojon

2. Shri. Khlurdarius Lyngkhoi

3. Smti. Laljoy Darnei

4. Smt. Mary Jone Ngamlai,

5. Smti. Evameda Pyngrope

6. Smti. Riping Dkhar

7. Smti. Wankmen langjuh

8. Smti. Rejoicecy Syiemlich

9. Baiahunlang Kynter

10. Dinesh R.Marak

11. Shri. Batboklang Nongbri

12. Shri. Blesstar Shabong

13. Smti. Pirdalin Mawlein

14. Smti. Batrity Syiemlich,

15. Smti. Naphibansara Wansai

16. Shri. Riwelsing Rynjah

17. Smti. Ronisha Nongrang

18. Smti. Santilin Nongrang

19. Shri. Rockyland B. Marak

20. Smt. Rosesila Tron

21. Shri. Pynphrang Pamshong

22. Smt. Anisha Shylla

23. Smt. Novice Celebrate Marwein

24. Shri. Phrin Klein

25. Smt. Dianghun Nongmor

26. Smt. Halarihun Lyngdoh Mairang

27. Smt. Dashisha Jyrwa

28. Shri. Banteilang Wanniang

29. Shri. Dondor Nongrum

30. Smt. Smilinda Ramsiej

31. Smt. Rosebornlin Thongni

32. Shri. Banbhaboklang Shangdiar

33. Shri. Anbokwell Lyngkhoi

34. Smt. Baiahunlang Nongsiej

35. Shri. Pyndapborlang Iawphniaw

36. Smt. Balaaihun Lyngdoh

37. Smti. Susana Kharbani

38. Smti. Bashanti Lyngdoh

39. Smt. Spulkin Marwein

40. Shri. Lastone L. Peinlang

41. Smt. Dolphina Kharbani

42. Smt. Lyntibakordor R. Thabah

43. Smt. Badarishai Lyngkhoi

44. Shri. Calling Man Pariong

45. Smt. Budshisha Jyrwa

… Petitioner(s) Versus

1. State of Meghalaya represented by The Chief Secretary Government of Meghalaya, Shillong

2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Education Government of Meghalaya, Shillong

3. The Director of School Education & Literacy, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong

4. The Director, Directorate of Elementary and Mass Education, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong … Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. Singh, Adv. with

Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.

Mr. L. Syiem, Adv.

Mr. W. Dkhar, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA

__________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners herein numbering 45(forty-five), who were contractual Government Teachers, teaching in Lower Primary Schools were terminated on 15.12.2020, on not having the requisite qualification of Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test (MTET).

2. The grievance of the writ petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that after 2019, though the Government has held only 3(three) examinations for qualification of MTET, the petitioners have since qualified, but however there has been no fresh recruitment to the numerous vacant posts that are available.

3. Mr. V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by an RTI query, they have come to learn that there are 563 vacancies presently available, in the post of Assistant Teachers. He further submits that the petitioners are therefore apprehensive that if selection or consideration for filling up these posts is not taken up expeditiously, many petitioners would be rendered overaged and ineligible, in spite of having the requisite qualification. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to representations dated 18.08.2025 and 23.09.2025 respectively annexed at Annexures-2 & 3, to the writ petition, wherein they have sought for consideration and submits that the same has not been disposed of till date, by the respondents. He therefore, prays for appropriate directions to direct the respondents to initiate immediate steps for filling up these vacant posts, and that the petitioners be given due consideration, if any other methods of filling up the vacancies are undertaken, considering the past service rendered and the fact that they have attained the required qualifications.

4. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R Chyne, learned GA for the respondents in reply has submitted that the petitioners have no vested rights to claim for appointment against the vacant posts. In this context, the learned AAG has referred to the Judgment dated 28.10.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 369 of 2020 together with other connected matters, and submits that this Court after going through the entire history with regard to the claim of the similarly situated petitioners on the aspect of MTET qualification, had observed that in the event of any selection, the State respondents were to allow the petitioners therein to participate for the post of Assistant Teacher. He therefore, submits that as no advertisement has been issued for the present vacancies, no case has been made out in the writ petition, inasmuch as, as and when the same is initiated the petitioners will naturally be eligible to participate. He further submits that if in case age relaxation is required, the same will be positively considered by the State respondents.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the only grievance of the writ petitioners is that firstly the representations dated 18.08.2025 and 23.09.2025, have not been considered, with the added prayer for consideration by the respondents for regular appointment to sanctioned posts, as per the eligibility, in the light of the Supreme Court directions and other Government guidelines and policies. It is noted from the submissions and from the materials as placed, that there are 563 vacancies as per the RTI reply received on 06.08.2025, and that from the last selection process that was conducted sometime in the year 2021, though many vacancies are existing, there has been no fresh appointment for Assistant Teachers to the said vacancies.

6. As the point in issue is very short, notwithstanding the representations that have not been disposed of by the respondents, considering the limited prayer of the writ petitioners and also the fact that the MTET qualification by a notification dated 09.06.2021, has been made valid for life, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the State respondents take steps expeditiously for filling up the 563 posts of

Assistant Teachers considering the long lapse in the recruitment process, and also the fact that qualified teachers, such as the petitioners are without employment since the termination of their services in the year 2020.

7. As nothing remains for consideration, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE

Meghalaya 09.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”

2026:MLHC:322 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.04.09 19:18:45 IST Signature Not Verified