1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned Govt. advocate appearing for respondent no.5.

2. It appears that from the facts of the case that the petitioner herein is the victim of circumstances which is beyond control. The case of the petitioner is that she was enrolled in the CMJ University, Meghalaya from where she had passed her M.A. degree in Philosophy in the year 2011. Nonetheless, prior to obtaining her degree, she was appointed as a Principal of Hazi Amsar Ali Mukhtar Girls Senior Secondary School, Morigaon on 25.07.2000. The petitioner was otherwise eligible for provincialisation of her service under the relevant Act. After due process, the name of the petitioner appeared in the select list of the State Level Scrutiny Committee. However, there was an observation that the M.A. degree of the petitioner was required to be verified. However, on 11.02.2021 when the select list was uploaded the name of the petitioner did not figure in the select list. Moreover, none of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school were in the list.

3. Aggrieved by non approval of the her name for provincialisation, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 3260/2021 and this Court by an order dated 15.07.2021 disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction on the respondent no.1 i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department to pass a reasoned order. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no order has been passed by the respondent no.1 pursuant to the direction contained in order dated 15.07.2021.

4. Further case projected by the petitioner is that the respondent authorities by a meeting dated 28.12.2021 had proposed to provincialise the service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school, however, by leaving the post of Principal as vacant. However, till date the service of the teaching and nonteaching staff of the said school have not been provincialised. With regard to proposal for provincialisation, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the communication dated 13.01.2022 by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam addressed to the Special Commissioner to the Govt. of Assam, Secondary Education Department (Annexure-15). In the said context, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the post of the Principal is lying vacant and that if the MA degree of the petitioner is valid she would be eligible for provincialisation of her service as Principal, as such, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for directing the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry regarding the validity of the MA degree of the petitioner and to bring the same to a logical conclusion and in the event the MA degree of the petitioner is found valid to pass an appropriate order for provincialisation of her service. The petitioner also prayed for restraining the respondent authorities from giving effect to the minutes of meeting dated 28.12.2021 and the proposal vide letter dated 13.01.2022 before the exercise of provincialisation of service of the petitioner as Principal of the said school is completed.

5. This matter was previously listed in the motion column and pursuant to order dated 28.02.2022, 11.03.2022, 16.03.2022 and 28.03.2022, the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department has obtained a copy of order in the case of State of Meghalaya and anr. Vs. CMJ Foundation and Ors., 2021 Legal Eagle (Megh) 93, being WA No. 14/2017 decided on 06.05.2021. By virtue of the said order, the matter relating to winding up of the CMJ University has been referred to the learned Single Judge of the said Hon’ble Court for going into merit of the decision of the State Govt. for dissolution of the said University. Nonetheless, at paragraph 30 of the said order, the following observation has been made by the Division Bench of Meghalaya High Court, which is quoted below:

“30. At this stage, reference also must be made to the last paragraph of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.09.2013 passed in SLP. No. 19617/2013. Under the said paragraph, directions were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the students whose admissions and degrees were declared illegal may also make representation to the State Government and seek an opportunity of hearing from it. The request made by them shall be sympathetically considered by the State Government. This direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no room for any doubt that there was no further scope for issuance of any kind of direction by the State Government under Section 48(2) of the said Act. What was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to take appropriate action under Section 48 of the said Act after giving prior notice and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The above direction in the last paragraph by the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that there was no further scope for the State Government to issue any direction to the respondent University for rectification and what was required was to issue notice and give reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. It was not permissible for the appellant/State Government or the learned Single Judge to go back in time and reopen the state of affairs which attained finality by virtue of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.09.2013 in SLP. No.19617/2013. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order has suggested the course of action which runs contrary to the course of action laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and such action on the part of the learned Single Judge is clearly impermissible in law.”

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the students whose admission and degrees were declared illegal, were permitted to make representation before the State Government and seek an opportunity of hearing from him. In the said context, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said order would permit the petitioner to seek intervention of the Government of Assam to take a decision on the same. Accordingly, he has submitted that there was no impediment on the part of the respondent no.1 to comply with the order dated 18.07.2021 passed in WP(C) 3260/2021.

7. In response to the said submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department has submitted that as the issue before the Meghalaya High Court relates to the decision of the State Government for the dissolution of the said CMJ University, the reference to State Government as made in paragraph 30 of the above referred paragraph would only mean State of Meghalaya where the said University is located, and by implication, it would exclude the State of Assam.

8. The Court finds the force in the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department. Therefore, notwithstanding that the State of Meghalaya is not a party in the writ petition, but as the Supreme Court of India had made an observation that the students whose admission and degrees were declared illegal may also make representation to the State Government and seek an opportunity of hearing from it, the Court is inclined to close this writ petition, however, by granting liberty to the petitioner herein to submit a representation before the appropriate authority in the Govt. of Meghalaya for taking an appropriate decision as to the validity of her degree of MA in Philosophy which was awarded to the petitioner in the year 2011. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit her representation before the competent authority of the Govt. of Meghalaya along with a certified copy of this order.

9. Having noted the projection made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Principal of Hazi Amsar Ali Mukhtar Girls Senior Secondary School, Morigaon on 25.07.2000, the Court would expect the competent authority of the State of Meghalaya to pass an appropriate order as early as possible preferably within an outer period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the representation along with the copy of this order.

10. It is needles to observe that in the event the Government of Meghalaya finds that the degree awarded to the petitioner is valid, the opinion of the Government of Meghalaya shall be accepted by the Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Assam without any reservation and shall take a decision on the claim of provincialisation of service of the petitioner in accordance with law.

11. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by the Government of Meghalaya or non-consideration of the representation within the time allowed, it would be open to the petitioner to move the High Court of Meghalaya for seeking appropriate remedy as the petitioner may be so advised.

12. This writ petition stands disposed of with observations to the extent as indicated above.