\u201cNo authority can stop inter-caste or intersect marriage.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n
Meghalaya High Court: <\/strong>A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.R. Sen, J. allowed a petition while expressing anguish and displeasure over the matter concerning the inter-caste or inter-sect marriage.<\/p>\n
In the present case, the petitioner was working as an assistant teacher and was discharging his duties in full satisfaction. On the completion of 3 years and 5 months of service at the same position, the petitioner was verbally asked by respondent 7 to resign from his post and the reason behind the said action was that \u201cthe petitioner had married a lady from a different denomination which belonged to the Roman Catholic Church\u201d.<\/p>\n
For the above-said facts, petitioner had filed a written complaint to respondent 3 stating the discrimination actions. On acting in regard to the complaint filed, in the month of July 2018 petitioner was asked to come to the office of respondent 3 in which petitioner was given an assurance that the matter would be taken up, but till date, no positive response has been received. Petitioner was forced to resign from his post without any semblance of any complaint which was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the petitioner\u00a0Mr P\u00a0Nongbri stated that respondent’s 7 and 8 refused to accept the notice of the Court. Further learned GA\u00a0 Mr K. Baruaa ppearing on behalf of respondent 1-6 stated that government also issued a show cause notice but respondent’s 7 and 8 chose to remain silent on the same.<\/p>\n
Thus, the High Court, while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, <\/em>(2011) 6 SCC 405<\/a> in which it was stated that:<\/p>\n
The bench in the stated decision observed that: <\/strong><\/p>\n
Therefore, in the present case, the bench expressed shock that in the 21st<\/sup> century such a narrow outlook is still being carried out. Respondent’s 7 and 8 were directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately without any further delay and to clear all his dues, salary and other benefits along with a compensation of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner. [Dasuklang Kharjana v. State of Meghalaya,\u00a02018 SCC OnLine Megh 287<\/b><\/a>, decided on 20-12-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"