Meghalaya High Court Quashes School Notice Treating Teacher As Contractual | Due Procedure Mandatory Before Altering Service Conditions | Service Cannot Be Dispensed Without Notice
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh held that the unilateral conversion of a long-standing teaching appointment into a contractual engagement, without due notice or adherence to procedural safeguards, was impermissible. The Court quashed the communications issued by the school management treating the petitioner’s service as expired and conditional upon reappointment. The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner’s services shall not be disturbed except in accordance with due process and applicable policy.
The petitioner, a teacher at Hill View Secondary School (HVSS), Shillong, challenged two communications issued by the school authorities—one dated 14 February 2019 stating that her contractual appointment had expired in 2002, and another dated 30 April 2019 calling for her appearance before a Board of Officers for an interview for reappointment. The petitioner sought a declaration that her service was of a permanent nature and not contractual, and that the communications attempting to alter her employment status were illegal.
Initially, three teachers had filed the writ petition—Shri Arvind Kumar Pathak, Smti Mousami Paul Choudhury, and Smti Indrani Dutta. Over the course of the proceedings, two of the petitioners superannuated. Accordingly, by orders dated 22 August 2024 and 28 April 2025, their names were deleted from the cause title, leaving Smti Mousami Paul Choudhury as the sole petitioner.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Social Science) on 18 February 1991. Her appointment letter describe her as a temporary teacher on a three-month probation. For over two decades, she served continuously as a teacher at HVSS. In 2003, a public notice published in the Shillong Times called on teachers to collect fresh contracts of appointment, which was interpreted by the petitioner and others as an attempt to reduce their permanent status to contractual employment. This prompted a writ petition (WP(C) 181(SH) of 2004) before the then Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
In the 2009 order passed in that petition, the Court directed the school management not to alter the service conditions of the teachers without providing notice and following due procedure.
Despite this, on 14 February 2019, the school authorities issued a communication to the petitioner stating that her contract had expired on 1 December 2002 and that she was required to attend an interview for regularisation of her services. Failure to do so would result in the treatment of her appointment as invalid.
Upon receipt of the show cause notice dated 26 March 2019, the petitioner submitted a reply on 12 April 2019 asserting that her service was permanent in nature and that her original appointment had never been stated as contractual. A second notice dated 30 April 2019 restated the call for the petitioner to attend an interview by 3 May 2019, warning that non-compliance would be interpreted as unwillingness to continue, potentially leading to termination.
The petitioner submitted that she had never been given a copy of the Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) under which these directives were issued. She further contended that her services could not be altered without following the earlier judicial order and proper procedure.
The respondents Union of India, the Assam Regimental Centre, and its officers (respondents 6–8) submitted through their counsel that they were not concerned with the dispute, which was strictly between the school management and the petitioner. The matter thus proceeded ex parte against the Management Committee of HVSS and its principal.
The judgment noted that from the materials on record, including the contents of the writ petition, it could be discerned that the communication dated 12 February 2019 was framed in such a way as to suggest that the petitioner’s service was at risk of termination, despite her having served at the school for approximately twenty years.
It was the petitioner’s contention that her service as a teacher at Hill View Secondary School was of a permanent nature, as she had originally been appointed in 1991 in a temporary capacity with a probation period of three months. Having continued in service for over two decades, she claimed that her status had effectively become that of a permanent teacher.
In contrast, the Management Committee, through the impugned communication dated 14 February 2019, described the petitioner’s employment as contractual. This position was found to be inconsistent with the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the same respondent on 3 October 2019.
The Court recorded that since the petitioner’s original appointment was explicitly of a temporary nature, the school management could not subsequently alter the classification to that of a contractual appointment. On this basis, the Court found the communication dated 14 February 2019 to be defective in relation to the nature of the petitioner’s employment.
At the same time, the Court observed that although the petitioner had claimed her employment had become permanent over time, there was no documentary evidence on record to support this assertion. While Section 4.10 of the Standing Operating Procedure appeared to contain relevant provisions, there was no indication that this SOP had ever been communicated to the petitioner.
A comparison between the communications dated 25 December 2003 and 14 February 2019 revealed that both addressed the same issue—namely, the renewal of teacher contracts at Hill View Secondary School.
The Court, bound by a prior judicial ruling that had attained finality, stated that the same legal reasoning could be appropriately applied to the case at hand.
The High Court directed the following in conclusion: “Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 14.02.2019 as well as the show cause notice dated 30.04.2019 are hereby set aside and quashed.”
“The service of the petitioner is not to be dispensed with at this juncture but it is left open to the respondent/Managing Committee to comply with the policies of the school as far as employment of teachers is concerned, however by following due procedure.”
“In the event, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. No cost.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Dkhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Debnath, Central Government Counsel (for Respondents 6–8 only)
Case Title: Smti. Masuami Paul Choudhury v. The Management Committee of Hill View Secondary School & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:535
Case Number: WP(C) No. 141 of 2019
Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh
