Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 287 (CAL)

OSMAN ALL SEKH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-05-11

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2006
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, JJ. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the school authority has not been issuing the letter of appointment, though the school service commission recommended to the school to appoint him as Headmaster thereof. ( 2 ) ON November 12th, 1979 the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher of the school. On March 2nd, 1995 he was appointed as assistant Headmaster thereof. The school sent the statutory requisition in prescribed form filled in by the Headmaster and Secretary of the school on december 1st, 2004. It was mentioned that the medium of instructions of the school being Bengali and Urdu, a person duly qualified for the post of Headmaster was needed. The commission initiated the selection process. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was selected for the post of Headmaster. By its order dated January 30th, 2006 the commission recommended the petitioner to the school. According to the existing provisions of law, the school authority was to issue the letter of appointment. Since the letter of appointment was not issued, the school service commission sent letters dated March 22nd, 2006 and April 25th, 2006. The school authority was directed to issue the letter of appointment. It was mentioned that in default the question of taking action in terms of Section 9a of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 would be considered. ( 4 ) THE school authority did not issue the appointment letter. The president and the Secretary of the managing committee that is in office at the present moment are parties in the present case, and they have entered appearance Counsel for the president (the president is a former principal of a college) submits that since the Secretary of the managing committee was not inclined to issue the letter of appointment, the offer letter could not be issued in terms of recommendation of the commission. He says that the managing committee has adopted a resolution dated March 27th, 2006 authorizing its president to issue the offer letter. He says that his client has no objection to the issuing of the offer letter to the petitioner. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Secretary says that offer letter should not be issued to the petitioner. He says that the managing committee has adopted a resolution dated March 27th, 2006 authorizing its president to issue the offer letter. He says that his client has no objection to the issuing of the offer letter to the petitioner. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Secretary says that offer letter should not be issued to the petitioner. He says that by a resolution dated July 23rd, 2004 the managing committee had decided to send the requisition for appointing an Urdu knowing person to the post of Headmaster of the school, since around 80% students of the school are Urdu speaking students. He says that according to that resolution only a person having Urdu as one of the subjects in the Madhyamik Pariksha or in any other equivalent examination was to be appointed as Headmaster of the school. He does not want to make any comments whether the petitioner knows urdu or can speak Urdu. He, however, does not dispute that from the years 1979 and 1995 the petitioner has been working in the school as an assistant teacher and assistant Headmaster respectively. He does not say anything regarding the competence and capability of the petitioner. ( 6 ) AS to the resolution of the managing committee dated March 27th, 2006, he submits that questioning it the Secretary has instituted a suit before the competent civil Court. I !e says that in the pending suit an interim order has been made staying the operation of that resolution. He does not dispute the position that the petitioner is not a party in that suit. ( 7 ) IT seems to me that the Secretary of the school has grossly overstepped the limits of his power, authority and jurisdiction. In my view, his activities have spoiled the entire academic atmosphere of the school. He acted in a manner as if he were above the school service commission. He completely forgot that he was one of the persons who signed the requisition sent to the appropriate authority regarding anticipated vacancy for the post of Headmaster of the school. He is unable to say that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post of Headmaster of the school. He does not want to make any comments regarding the petitioner's capability to speak and teach in Urdu. The admitted position is that the petitioner has been in the school from the year 1979. He is unable to say that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post of Headmaster of the school. He does not want to make any comments regarding the petitioner's capability to speak and teach in Urdu. The admitted position is that the petitioner has been in the school from the year 1979. The further admitted position is that from the year 1995 he has been working in the school as the assistant Headmaster. ( 8 ) ON these admitted facts, I am compelled to say that the Secretary has some other reasons for keeping the petitioner away from the post of headmaster of the school. In my considered view, the activities of the Secretary call for a deterrent action, and the appropriate authority must take immediate action against him. He has generated this unnecessary litigation. There was absolutely no reason not to issue the offer letter, when the school service commission, being the expert for the purpose of recruitment and selection, duly selected the petitioner for the post of Headmaster. The Secretary was not authorised to say what should be the qualifications for the post. ( 9 ) THERE is absolutely no reason why an appropriate final order should not be made in the case at this stage itself. Pendency of the suit filed by the secretary, in my view, is not a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition, and also to the making of an appropriate order in it. Here the school authority was under the statutory obligation to issue the offer letter to the petitioner. The civil court has not made any order restraining the school authority from discharging its statutory duties. The petitioner alleges that the school authority has failed and neglected to discharge its statutory duties. Needless to say that only because one of the members of the managing committee is not co-operating, it cannot be said that such duty is not be discharged by the managing committee. ( 10 ) FOR these reasons I dispose of the writ petition by the following order: the president of the managing committee or its ex-officio Joint secretary shall immediately issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner. Steps for the purpose shall be taken at once. All the authorities shall act upon such letter of appointment. ( 10 ) FOR these reasons I dispose of the writ petition by the following order: the president of the managing committee or its ex-officio Joint secretary shall immediately issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner. Steps for the purpose shall be taken at once. All the authorities shall act upon such letter of appointment. In my view, this is a fit case where costs should be imposed on the secretary of the school. Since he obstructed the implementation of the duly issued order of the school service commission, and since he obstructed the managing committee in the matter of discharge of its statutory duties, I think it is appropriate that the parties who have been brought before this Court with this unnecessary litigation are moderately compensated. Hence, I order that the Secretary of the managing committee shall pay (from his own pocket) costs at the rate of Rs. 5000/- to the school service commission, the managing committee of the school, and the petitioner. Such costs shall be paid by him within a fortnight. ( 11 ) THE Principal Secretary, School Education Department of the government, the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the Director of School Education, West Bengal, and the District Inspector of schools concerned are hereby directed to take immediate action against the erratic activities of the Secretary of the school. If necessary, they shall initiate appropriate legal proceedings against him. They shall ensure that such a thing as this never occurs in any educational institution.