SHILLONG, Dec 6: Assistant professors of government-aided colleges in the state are euphoric that the High Court of Meghalaya has quashed a notification that debarred them from taking part in political activities and political associations.
In an order passed on Monday, Justice HS Thangkhiew said the amended Aided College Employees Rules, which barred the teachers from taking part in the electoral process, is not tenable.
The assistant professors had filed a writ petition in the High Court in July this year against the government notification issued on November 8, 2021 that barred them from taking part in politics.
Brightstarwell Marbaniang, one of the assistant professors who filed the writ petition, told reporters they are happy over the court’s order. He said the court took cognisance of the rights of the teachers.
“Six of us had filed the petition. This is not a new issue. It started in 2018 when the present NPP-led MDA government had introduced the Meghalaya State Education Policy, 2018,” Marbaniang, who will contest the upcoming Assembly elections from Mawlai as a Voice of the People Party (VPP) candidate, said.
He said the teachers were barred from taking part in politics as per clause 7.4.3 of the Meghalaya Education Policy.
He said the government has invited views and suggestions from the stakeholders and citizens on the draft education policy.
“We have gone through the draft policy and nowhere, it is mentioned to bar the teachers from taking part in politics. The clause to bar teachers was inserted in the policy when the draft was passed by the Cabinet and later, notified by the government,” Marbaniang said.
He said it was last year that the state government came up with a notification amending Rule 6 and 7 of the service rules of government-aided colleges that allowed the teachers to take part in politics.
“As per Rule 6 and 7 of the service rules, any teacher can take part in politics. But the condition was that the teachers will need to take leave if they plan to contest the election,” Marbaniang said.
According to him, this was active since Meghalaya attained statehood in 1972 and continued till the 2018 Assembly elections.
“It is only the present government which brought the education policy to bar the teachers from taking part in politics and even amended service rules,” the HSPDP candidate said.
He disclosed that the Education department had sent a letter to the various government-aided colleges reminding them of the November 8, 2021 notification. He said the teachers wanted to explore other options to convince the government to withdraw the notification.
“However, we were left with no option but to approach the court following the statement of Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong that the government is not going to review its decision. He (Tynsong) even stated that the aggrieved teachers can approach the court,” Marbaniang added.
Another petitioner, assistant professor Batskhem Myrboh, said none of them, except Marbaniang, is planning to contest the polls.
He said the government notification not only applies to the assistant professors but also to the schoolteachers and non-teaching staff of all government-aided institutions. “The objective behind barring teachers from taking part in politics is not very clear. But going by the statements of the ministers, the government wanted to improve the education sector,” Myrboh said.
He said the government could make other interventions to improve the education sector.
In the order, the court said, “The impugned amendments as given in the impugned notification dated 23.03.2021, amending the Aided College Employees Rules, being the product of a flawed decision-making process, are held to be unsustainable, and as such, the impugned notification is set aside and quashed.”
“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. Further, the contention that the government exercises deep and pervasive control over the services of the petitioners and the institutions has not been borne out by the materials on record,” the order further said.
