Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 895 (CAL)

Kaji Abdul Mannan v. The State of West Bengal

2010-07-30

TAPEN SEN

body2010
Judgment :- Tapen Sen, J: 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the grandsons of the founder member of the Sargachi High School as well as by the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 who are guardians of students of the said school challenging the qualifications of the Respondent No. 3 for functioning/being appointed to the post of a Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School. 2. According to the Petitioners, in the year 1997, the post of a Headmaster of the said School had fallen vacant and therefore, an Advertisement was published in the “Bartaman Patrika” on 8.9.1996 for filling up the said vacancy in accordance with the prevalent procedure. It is stated that names of candidates being 17 in number were sent by the Commission through the Employment Exchange and two more persons had applied to the Secretary pursuant to the said Advertisement. According to the Petitioners, out of these 19 candidates, the Respondent No. 3 (Rabin Ranjan Shakari) appeared before the Selection Committee on 23.2.1997 and on the date of the interview, he did not produce his original testimonials namely, the Certificate and Marksheet but he produced only the provisional Certificate and a photocopy of other documents. According to the Petitioners, since there were no other candidates, the Selection Committee forwarded his name to the Managing Committee for being selected on the post of a Headmaster and just before the Puja Vacation, the Secretary of the School issued an Appointment letter without there being any Resolution of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, it is stated that the Managing Committee, without taking the original documents, sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan for approval and the District Inspector of Schools approved the name of the Respondent No. 3 whereafter he joined on the post of a Headmaster as a Scheduled Caste Candidate but his appointment was not approved by the Director of School Education. According to the further case of the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 3 is an M.Sc. in Physics and B.Sc (Hons.) from the Rajsahi College and University of Bangladesh and he had come to India in 1981 having joined as an Assistant Teacher in the Media Bastuhara High School in Village Khanfura in the District in Howrah in 1982. According to the further case of the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 3 is an M.Sc. in Physics and B.Sc (Hons.) from the Rajsahi College and University of Bangladesh and he had come to India in 1981 having joined as an Assistant Teacher in the Media Bastuhara High School in Village Khanfura in the District in Howrah in 1982. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 3 joined the School as Headmaster on 5.11.1997 and has been working as such since then as Headmaster. 3. According to the further case of the Petitioners, after his date of joining, regular complaints were filed by the students complaining that the Headmaster could not teach Physics in Class IX or X nor could he teach any other subject in any other class and that he would always take the help of reference Guide Books while teaching in lower classes. 4. According to the Petitioners, the Secretary of the Managing Committee has all along tried to defend the Respondent No. 3. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that after receiving a Representation from the students, the Managing Committee, in its Resolution dated 1.2.1997, decided to ask the Respondent No. 3 to produce his Original Certificates pertaining to his educational qualifications but the Respondent No. 3 did not produce any such Certificates. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 3 has a very poor knowledge in English and that he cannot even issue a Certificate correctly in English or issue Notices in English. It is further stated that the guardians had brought this fact to the notice of the Managing Committee as well as to the notice of the District Education Department and requested them to take steps. 5. Thereafter, the guardians and the concerned authority wrote a letter to the Controller of Examinations, University of Rajsahi, Bangladesh for authentication of the qualifications of the Respondent No. 3 who was said to have done his B.Sc (Hons.) in 1979 and M.Sc. (Physics) in 1980 from that University. After receiving the Application, the Controller of Examinations, University of Rajsahi, Bangladesh, sent a reply to the Petitioner No. 1 asking him to apply to the University through its High Commission. The reply is Annexure- P/5. (Physics) in 1980 from that University. After receiving the Application, the Controller of Examinations, University of Rajsahi, Bangladesh, sent a reply to the Petitioner No. 1 asking him to apply to the University through its High Commission. The reply is Annexure- P/5. The Petitioners have stated that after receiving a Representation from them as well as from the guardians and students of the School, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal wrote a letter on 23.2.1999 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Education requesting him to send a suitable reply to the Petitioners. 6. According to the Petitioners, the authorities should have considered the Govt. Circular dated 3.8.1982 but they did not do so and as such the appointment of the Headmaster insofar as the Respondent No. 3 is concerned, was liable to be cancelled. 7. Before this Court proceeds to take up the issues involved, it would be relevant to record that on 10.2.2005, another Hon’ble Single Judge, namely Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pratap Kumar Ray, while referring to the different Circulars, had passed an Order restraining the Respondent No. 3 from attending the School in question and had further observed that since there was no approval to the Order of Appointment, the Respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to get any salary. The said Hon’ble Single Judge had also held that the Writ Petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the appointment of the Respondent No. 3. The said Order is necessary to be reproduced and the same reads as follows:- 10.2.2005 Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Uttam Chakraborty…….for the Petitioners. Mr. Anwar Hossain, Ms. Madhumita Dutta……for the Respondent No. 4 Mr. Ashim Kumar Halder...for the Respondent No. 5 Mrs. Sukiran Biswas, Ms. Chandrani Chatterjee…..for the Respondent No. 3 Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Biswas, Director of School Education, West Bengal is present before this Court along with the Affidavit of Compliance. Let Affidavit of Compliance as filed in Court today be kept on record. Having regard to the reasons as stated in the compliance report along with the fact of tendering unqualified apology, this Court feels that no further proceeding is required to be proceeded with for non-filling of affidavit in due time. Let Affidavit of Compliance as filed in Court today be kept on record. Having regard to the reasons as stated in the compliance report along with the fact of tendering unqualified apology, this Court feels that no further proceeding is required to be proceeded with for non-filling of affidavit in due time. In that view, personal appearance of Ardhendu Sekhar Biswas is dispensed with until further order granting him liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ application answering the point, as mentioned in detail, in the order dated 20th January, 2005 by holding appropriate enquiry from his subordinate officer, that is, the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Such affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed by three weeks from date. Sri Shibaji Porel, respondent No. 4, is present before this Court and prays time to file affidavit in due compliance of the order along with explanation. Such prayer is allowed. He is also directed to file affidavit-in-opposition by three weeks from date and the reply thereto, if any, be filed by one week thereafter. Personal appearance of Sri Shibaji Porel is dispensed with until further orders. It appears that by order dated 20th January, 2005 the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah and also the Certificate Officer, Howrah, being designated as Registering authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, both were directed to submit their reports on hearing the respondent No. 3 on the issue of citizenship certificate of respondent no. 3 on holding enquiry about the Degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science as granted to the respondent no. 3 by the Rajshahi University. From the Registry note it appears that the said order was duly communicated to the said officers on 4th February, 2005. Nobody has appeared on their behalf to submit the report although they were directed to file the same by holding appropriate enquiry. Since the order was served on them, as per Registry note, on 4th February, 2005, time to complete the enquiry in terms of the order dated 20th January, 2005 is extended for a period of three weeks from date. The aforesaid two officers will submit their report of the enquiry in terms of the order dated 20th January, 2005 on the next date as fixed. The Respondent No. 3 is also present before this Court. Learned for the petitioners has prayed for necessary order of Injunction restraining the attendance of the respondent no. The aforesaid two officers will submit their report of the enquiry in terms of the order dated 20th January, 2005 on the next date as fixed. The Respondent No. 3 is also present before this Court. Learned for the petitioners has prayed for necessary order of Injunction restraining the attendance of the respondent no. 3 in the school in question. For an interim order, the matter is heard at length. It is submitted by Mrs. Sukiran Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 that some documents are yet to be filed before this Court as proof of citizenship certificate vis-à-vis the valid document of studying in the Rajshahi University, Bangladesh Particularly in the years 1976 and 1977 when the respondent No. 3 qualified himself for the Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees as granted by the Rajshahi University, Bangladesh. Learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 has placed another Circular letter issued by the Education Department, Secondary Branch, Government of West Bengal being No. 82Edn. (S)/4A-17/82 dated Calcutta, the 21st January, 1988 to submit that the respondent No. 3 is legally entitled to continue in the post of Headmaster. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the Circular letter issued by the Education Department, Secondary Branch, Government of West Bengal, being No. 439-Edn (S)/4A-17/82 dated Calcutta, the 3rd August, 1982 read with another Circular letter, being No. 82-Edn. (S)/4A-17/82 dated Calcutta, the 21st January, 1988 issued by the Education Department, Secondary Branch, Government of West Bengal, the respondent No. 3 is required to prove the approval of appointment order issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The relevant Circular letters, as aforesaid, read as follows. “No. 439-Edn (S)/4A-17/82 dated Calcutta, the 3rd August, 1982. Sub: Appointment of emigrants from Bangladesh as Assistant Teacher in Secondary Schools in West Bengal. It has come to the notice of the State Government that some candidates possessing diploma/degree/certificate issued by the educational institution of Bangladesh are being selected on the basis of such qualification and approved by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary) concerned. It also appears that verification of their qualifications are not being done since it takes inordinately long time. It has come to the notice of the State Government that some candidates possessing diploma/degree/certificate issued by the educational institution of Bangladesh are being selected on the basis of such qualification and approved by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary) concerned. It also appears that verification of their qualifications are not being done since it takes inordinately long time. After consideration, the State Government is of the opinion that henceforth appointment of any candidate otherwise found suitable but possessing educational qualifications from any of the educational institutions of Bangladesh for which examinations were held after 16.3.1971 should not be approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. But all such cases should be referred to the Director of the Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal for approval. Director of Secondary Education may please scrutinize such applications of the otherwise suitable selected candidates and examine if such selection was based on educational qualification obtained from educational institutions of Bangladesh for examination held after 16.3.1971; and if so, whether such candidate(s) possesses Indian Passport and visa from the Government of Bangladesh in E or F form. Candidates possessing such Indian Passport and Visa from Bangladesh Government in E or F form for the relevant period may be approved by the Director of Secondary Education if otherwise found suitable. The cases of candidates not covered by the instructions as above may be referred to the Department. The matter is extremely important. Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged immediately.” “No. 82-Edn. (S)/4A-17/82 dated Calcutta, the 21st January, 1988 2/2 Sub: Appointment of emigrants from Bangladesh as Assistant Teacher in Secondary Schools in West Bengal. The undersigned is directed to say that in terms of G.O. No. 439-Edn.(S) dated 3.8.82, appointment of any candidate possessing educational qualificational qualifications from any of the educational institution of Bangladesh for which examinations were held after 16.3.71 and who does not possess Indian Passport and Visa- from Bangladesh in E or F forms should not be approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Now the position has been reviewed by the Govt. and it has been decided that henceforth the following steps should be taken before approving the appointment of emigrants from Bangladesh as Assistant Teacher in Secondary schools in West Bengal: 1. Certificates from any educational institutions of Bangladesh obtained upto 16.3.71 should be got verified through the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. and it has been decided that henceforth the following steps should be taken before approving the appointment of emigrants from Bangladesh as Assistant Teacher in Secondary schools in West Bengal: 1. Certificates from any educational institutions of Bangladesh obtained upto 16.3.71 should be got verified through the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India the concerned University of Bangladesh. If the certificates are found genuine and if the candidate possesses valid Indian Citizenship Certificates, appointment of Bangladesh emigrants as Assistant Teacher may be approved by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. 2. In case an applicant has obtained higher academic qualifications from any recognised University in India on the basis of lower academic qualifications from Bangladesh, the latter qualifications from Bangladesh need not be verified. The matter is extremely urgent. This may be communicated to all concerned.” On a bare perusal of the aforesaid two Circular letters, it appears that unless and until the appointment of any such type of teachers who qualified themselves with the degrees from the University situated at Bangladesh after 1977 since are required to be approved by the Director of School Education, West Bengal and admittedly such approval in the instant case has not been granted by the Director of School Education, West Bengal as it appears from the compliance report as filed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal and since the learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 also failed to satisfy this Court that approval order of appointment was granted by the Director of School Education, West Bengal on verification of the Particular records processing through the Department of Ministry, External Affairs, Government of India, this Court is prima facie satisfied that there is no approval of the order of appointment of respondent No. 3 in the post of Headmaster in the concerned School. Furthermore it appears that said Respondent passed M.Sc degree which was of only one year course, whereas in India it is of two years. In that view of the matter, the respondent No. 3 is restrained from attending the School in question. The School authorities and the District Inspector of Schools concerned both are directed to take steps forthwith by appointing one teacher as Teacher-in-charge of the concerned School. Since there is no approval of the order of appointment, the respondent No. 3 shall not be entitled to get any salary for the present moment. The School authorities and the District Inspector of Schools concerned both are directed to take steps forthwith by appointing one teacher as Teacher-in-charge of the concerned School. Since there is no approval of the order of appointment, the respondent No. 3 shall not be entitled to get any salary for the present moment. Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 has raised the locus standi issue about the maintainability of the writ application by the writ petitioners by contending, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 1 is only the grand son of the Founder member and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are natural guardians in respect of the wards who are studying in the School in question. From the records of this case including the report of the Director of School Education, West Bengal it appears that the respondent no. 3 got no approval of appointment in the post of Headmaster as required to be issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal in terms of the aforesaid Circular letters dated 3rd August, 1982 and 21st January, 1988 respectively which was mandatory so far as appointment of any candidate who qualified himself with the higher degrees, namely, B.Sc. and M.Sc. after 1971. Since the approval of appointment is the basic for continuing in service which is absent in this field and since vital question has been raised by the writ petitioners assailing the citizenship of respondent No. 3 contending, inter alia, that without any valid and proper document the gentleman had exercised the fraud on Citizenship issue and since it appears from the records that the respondent No. 3 in the year 1968 got migrant certificate from the competent authority of India on the basis of his submission that he left Bangladesh with his mother for political reasons, but thereafter in the year 1972 the respondent No. 3 appeared in the Intermediary Examination under Rajshahi University and subsequently in the years 1976 and 1977 he appeared in the examination, namely, B.Sc. and M.Sc. and M.Sc. respectively of Rajshahi University and ultimately obtained the degrees thereof from the said University and the respondent No. 3 has failed to produce the Passport and Visa for his such studying under Rajshahi University at Bangladesh when admittedly he got the migrant certificate in the year 1968 issued by the Indian Government as alleged in the affidavit and since the issue relates to the citizenship on verification of the documents, this Court feels that the writ petitioners have locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3 in the School in question. Accordingly the point as raised by the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 about the locus standi issue stands rejected. The matter will appear in the list on 10th March, 2005 as Specially Fixed matter at 11 A.M. when the respondent No. 3 will remain present in the Court. Let the respective affidavits be exchanged between the parties in the meantime. Affidavit of Service filed in Court today be kept on record. Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No. 3 filed in Court today be kept on record. Heard the matter in part. Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties for effective service to the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah and the Certificate Officer, Howrah, on the usual undertaking. (Pratap Kumar Ray, J.)” (Quoted but emphasis by underlining supplied by this Court) 8. It appears that the aforementioned order dated 10.2.2005 was taken up in Appeal vide MAT No. 790 of 2005 (FMA No. 1483 of 2005) and by an Order dated 7.3.2005 the Division Bench passed the following Order :- 7.3.2005 Mr. B. R. Bhattacharyya Mr. Dipankar Dutt…….for the Appellant Mr. Pabitra Kumar Basu, Mr. Asim Kumar Halder…..for the State Mr. Rabi Sankar Chatterjee……for the writ petitioner Re: Appln. For stay (A.S.T. 227 of 2005). Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of the parties, we treat the appeal as on day’s list and dispose of both the appeal and the application by the following order:- It appears from the order dated 10.2.05 passed by the learned Judge of the writ court which is under appeal that the learned Judge has not disposed of the matter finally, but the writ petition has been fixed for hearing on 10.3.05 as specially fixed item. In the meantime the learned Judge has passed an interim direction, as a result of which it is directed that the respondent No. 3, the appellant before us, is restrained from attending the school in question as Headmaster and he will not be paid his salary. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that without final decision of the writ petition, such interim order is respect of his client who has been continuing for quite sometime, is not in accordance with the settled principles for granting an interim order. There may be some substance in the aforesaid contention. Learned Counsel for the respondents have tried to pursuade the court that such a direction was passed by the learned Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that continuance of the appellant as Headmaster of the school is illegal for various reasons. This Court is not going into all these questions since final hearing of the writ petition has not yet been completed and is pending before the learned Judge. The appeal is, treated on the day’s list and is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. The learned Judge of the writ court is requested to commence hearing of the writ petition on the date fixed and His Lordship is also requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant will not go to the school but he will be entitled to payment of salary as an Assistant Teacher. This court makes it clear that if ultimately the writ petition fails, the appellant will be entitled to get the balance of his salary for the period during which he is prevented from discharging his duties as Headmaster of the school and his service will be regularised. It will be open to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to raise all the points before the writ court at the time of hearing of the writ petition. With the above observation both the appeal and the stay petition are disposed of. Xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously. (ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, ACTING C.J.) (TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J.)” (Quoted) 9. With the above observation both the appeal and the stay petition are disposed of. Xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously. (ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, ACTING C.J.) (TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J.)” (Quoted) 9. It is thus evident that the observations/findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge made on 10.2.2005 were not interfered with and there was only a modification with regard to the interim Order. In other words, the findings of the learned Single Judge made at that stage were not interfered with. Moreover, it appears that thereafter on 10.3.2005 the Hon’ble Single Judge passed another Order which reads as follows:- 10.3.2005 Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Uttam Chakraborty, Mr. T. Nath……… for the petitioners. Mr. Ashim Kumar Halder…….for the D.S.E. Mr. Anwar Hossain……..for the respondent No. 4 Mr. B.R. Bhattacharya Mr. Dipankar Dutta Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya….for the Respondent No. 3. Report of Additional District Magistrate, Howrah in terms of the direction of this Court as filed has been sent from the registry. Let it be kept with the record. From the report it appears that as yet the investigation has not been completed as the District Refugee & Rehabilitation Officer took time to produce the earlier registers whereby new migrant certificate was issued in favour of Shri Sakhari, the respondent No. 3. Having regard to such, further time of one month is allowed to complete the investigation. It appears that respondent No. 3 was also heard by the Additional District Magistrate. Registry is directed to communicate the order of extension of time to the Additional District Magistrate as well as the Certificate Officer. Both of them are directed to complete the investigation and enquiry and thereby to submit a final result on the next date fixed. The learned Advocate appearing for the District Inspector of Schools concerned is directed to serve opposition to the respondent No. 3 so that a rejoinder could be filed within a week from date, reply, if any, be filed within one week thereafter by the respective parties. Let affidavit-in-opposition and compliance report as filed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned be kept with the record. Let copy of the affidavit-in-opposition of Director of School Education, West Bengal be served to the respondent No. 3 and he will be at liberty to file rejoinder of such within a week, reply, if any thereof within a week thereafter. Let affidavit-in-opposition and compliance report as filed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned be kept with the record. Let copy of the affidavit-in-opposition of Director of School Education, West Bengal be served to the respondent No. 3 and he will be at liberty to file rejoinder of such within a week, reply, if any thereof within a week thereafter. The matter will appear on 29th March, 2005 at 11 A.M. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Additional District Magistrate and the Certificate Officer. Let affidavit of service as filed be kept with the record. The respondent no. 3 is present today before this Court. His personal appearance is dispensed with until further order. It is submitted by both the parties that the Appeal Court has directed early hearing of the matter. The matter is accordingly fixed on 29th March, 2005 at 11 A.M. Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertakings. (Pratap Kumar Ray, J.)” (Quoted) 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned Order dated 10.3.2005, the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah submitted the following report which was placed at Flat-A “Report on W.P. No. 18127 (W) of 2001 Kazi Abdul Mannan-vs.- State of West Bengal vide Order dated 10.3.05 of Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata In pursuance with the order dated 10.3.2005 of Hon’ble Pratap Kumar Ray, Justice, High Court, Calcutta in WP No. 18127(W) of 2001 the matter has been inquired by me on 23.3.05, Sri Rabin Ranjan Sakhari was asked to appear for hearing on 18.3.2005 Sri Sakhari prayed for time and he was allowed to appear on 23.3.05. Rabin Ranjan Sakhari appeared before me on 23.3.05 at 12 noon. He deposed that he was displaced to India on 29.12.68 from erstwhile East Pakistan. He went to Bangladesh in 1971 and passed Higher Secondary Certificate Examination 1972, B.Sc. (Hons.) 1976 and M.Sc. (Physics) 1977 from Rajsahi University. He came back to India in November 1980 and was residing at Shalimar, Howrah. All these movements to and from India and Bangladesh were made without any passport or visa. He applied for citizenship certificate and it is reported by O/C, Citizenship Certificate, Howrah District on verification of relevant register that Rabin Ranjan Sakhari was issued citizenship certificate vide serial No. 45/49 CR/981 dated 7.8.81 by the Certificate Officer, Howrah. All these movements to and from India and Bangladesh were made without any passport or visa. He applied for citizenship certificate and it is reported by O/C, Citizenship Certificate, Howrah District on verification of relevant register that Rabin Ranjan Sakhari was issued citizenship certificate vide serial No. 45/49 CR/981 dated 7.8.81 by the Certificate Officer, Howrah. (A.K. Das) Addl. District Magistrate (J) Howrah Memo No. 397 /RM Dated, Howrah, the 28.3.2005 Submitted to Ld. Assistant Registrar (Court), High Court, Appellate Side/Calcutta for favour of information and necessary action. (A.K. Das) Addl. District Magistrate (J) Howrah REPORT As per orders dated 20.01.05 and 10.03.05 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 18127 (w) of 2001, every effort was made by the concerned officers and staff of R.R. & R. Section, Howrah, to thoroughly search out the necessary registers which will help to verify the New Migrant Certificate issued to Sri Rabin Ranjan Sakhari. But despite our best efforts, we are unable to trace out the concerned file and Issue Register used in 1984. It may kindly be noted that in the year 1984, this Office was lying in another building. The office was subsequently shifted to New Collectorate Building, where it is presently located. As a result, during this transition, those documents somehow may be missing. At this stage, this Office is not in a position to confirm the authenticity of the said certificate. Additional District Magistrate(RR & R) Howrah.” (Quoted) 11. Now the Respondent No. 5 (Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal) has filed an Affidavit-in-opposition wherein in paragraph 4 he has also stated that since the Respondent No. 3 obtained only a one year’s Master’s Degree, the same cannot be treated as a requisite qualification for appointment to the post of a Headmaster. He has further made some observations in paragraphs 3 & 4 which will be necessary to be quoted. The statements made by the Respondent No. 5 in paragraph 3 and 4 are quoted below:- 3. He has further made some observations in paragraphs 3 & 4 which will be necessary to be quoted. The statements made by the Respondent No. 5 in paragraph 3 and 4 are quoted below:- 3. Before dealing with and/or answering to the statements made in the said writ petition I say that following facts should be brought to the knowledge of this Hon’ble Court to adjudicate the issue in the said writ petition (i) I say that pursuant to the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 10-02-2005, I made an enquiry and advised the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) and the School authority to submit the documents regarding the matter particularly whether the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) had forwarded the matter regarding approval of the certificate of Rabin Ranjan Sarkhari to this deponent or not. (ii) I further say that after examining the records as submitted by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas it appears that at first District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 parganas vide his Memo No. 146-R(BT) dated 30-07-82 approved the service of Rabin Ranjan Sakhari (Respondent No. 3 herein) as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1-7-82 in Media Bastuhara High School, P.O. Media, Dist. 24 Parganas prior to issuance of G.O. No. 439-Edn dated 3rd August, 1982 and accordingly District Inspector of Schools (SE) had not referred the matter to Director of School Education, West Bengal for approval. (iii) It may be pertinent to mention here that on scrutiny the records as submitted by District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan it appears that District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan approved the service of Sri Rabin Ranjan Sakhari as Headmaster in Sargachi High Court with effect from 5-11-97 by issuing an order being Memo No. 109 dated 12-01-98 and the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) also had never forwarded the matter to Director of School Education, West Bengal for his approval. (iv) I further say that as per G.O. No. 82-Edn (S) dated 21-01-88 certificates from any Educational Institutions of Bangladesh obtained after 16-03-71 should be got verified through the Ministry of External affairs, Government of India from the concerned University of Bangladesh. If the certificates are found genuine and if the candidates possesses valid Indian Citizenship Certificate, appointment of Bangladesh emigrants as Assistant Teacher may be approved by Director of School Education, West Bengal. If the certificates are found genuine and if the candidates possesses valid Indian Citizenship Certificate, appointment of Bangladesh emigrants as Assistant Teacher may be approved by Director of School Education, West Bengal. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan submits that as there is provision as laid down in G.O. No. 82-Edn (S) dated 21-01-88 in case of Assistant Teacher but not in case of Headmaster. Same had not been forwarded to Director of School Education, West Bengal for approval. (v) I further say that until and unless the matter is forwarded to Director of School Education, West Bengal by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), for taking approval by Director of School Education, West Bengal this document has nothing to do regarding the matter. 4. With regard to the submissions made in paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 8 of the said application I deny and dispute such statements save and except what are matters of records and I further say that according to t he procedure established the papers and documents produced by the school authority in relation to approval of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as Headmaster were not required to place before the then Director of School Education, West Bengal for necessary approval. I further say that the Government circular being No. 82-Edn (S) dated 21st January, 1988 is not applicable in the instant case, as the said Government order relates to appointment of Assistant Teachers only. However, Government order being no. 586-Edn (S) dated 27th July, 1989 is applicable in the instant case, whereby it was directed that 2 years Master Degree will be the requisite qualification for appointment of Her Master of a High/Higher Secondary School. As in the instant case the instant case the Respondent No. 3 has obtain only one years Master Degree, his such Master Degree should not be treated as requisite qualification for appointment of Head Master of a Recognised High School. Accordingly the approval of appointment of Respondent No. 3 granted by the Respondent No. 4 is required to be cancelled, xerox copies of the said Government orders bing no. 82-Edn (S) dated 21st January, 1988 and 586-Edn.(S) dated 27th July, 1989 are annexed hereto and marked with letter R-1 and R-2 respectively.” (Quoted but emphasis by underlining supplied by this Court) 12. 82-Edn (S) dated 21st January, 1988 and 586-Edn.(S) dated 27th July, 1989 are annexed hereto and marked with letter R-1 and R-2 respectively.” (Quoted but emphasis by underlining supplied by this Court) 12. In this context, Annexure-R/2 brought on record by the Respondent No. 5 is a Circular of the Government of West Bengal dated 27/31.7.1989 which lays down that for purposes of appointment/recruitment to the post of a Headmaster/Headmistress of a High/ Higher secondary School, Master’s Degree would mean the completion of a course of at least two years’ duration. From the facts stated that, it appears that the Respondent No. 3 passed his M.Sc. from Bangladesh which was a one year course and therefore, the Respondent No. 5 stated that his appointment as Headmaster is required to be cancelled. 13. According to Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 3 is therefore not qualified to hold the post of a Headmaster in terms of Memo No. 586 dated 27/31.7.1989 referred to above as he had only one years’ M.Sc. Course whereas the Master-degree would mean a two years’ Course. Circular dated 27/31.7.1989 is quoted below:- [E/3 (xi)] GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Education Department, Secondary Branch. No. 586-Edn (S) 4A-23/82Pt. Calcutta, the 27/31st July, 1989 From : Sri H.P. Mukherjee, IAS., Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal To: The Director of School Education, West Bengal Sub: Recruitment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of a recognised Non-Govt. High/Higher Secondary School. The under signed is directed to say that, under existing orders, the minimum academic qualification for recruitment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress is a recognised Non-Govt. High/Higher Secondary School is that they should be trained Graduates with regular Hons. Degree or with Master’s Degree, who have secured not less than 40% marks, in M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. But is has not been specified whether M.A. /M.Sc./M.Com degree should necessarily be of two year duration. Some Universities treat M.A. of one year duration at per with M.A. of two –year duration and accordingly by obtaining M.Ed. or M.A. degree of one year during at per with M.A. of two –year duration and accordingly by obtaining M.Ed. or M.A. degree of one year duration, some candidates got their appointment as Headmaster in Non-Govt. High/Higher Secondary School. Some Universities treat M.A. of one year duration at per with M.A. of two –year duration and accordingly by obtaining M.Ed. or M.A. degree of one year during at per with M.A. of two –year duration and accordingly by obtaining M.Ed. or M.A. degree of one year duration, some candidates got their appointment as Headmaster in Non-Govt. High/Higher Secondary School. Government have considered the matter & it has been decided that such appointment, as have already been made, be approved as fait-accompli. Government have, however, decided that for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of a High/Higher Secondary School “Master’s degree” means such degree obtained on completion, of a course of at least two-year duration. This should be followed strictly henceforth. A question has been raised if the Headmaster of a Jr. High School, not having the prescribed minimum qualification for application for appointment as a Headmaster/Headmistress of a High/Higher Secondary School, is allowed to continue as Teacher-in-charge on up-gradation of the said Jr. High School to a High School and if such Teacher-in-charge subsequently acquires the required qualification (Hons./Master’s degree), from which date he/she will be entitled to the pay-scale of the Headmaster of a High School whether from the date of publication of the result of the examination causing the entitlement or from the date of completion of the examination. It is hereby clarified that in such a case, the relevant pay scale should be allowed from the date next to the completion of his/her examination-both theoritical and practical. All concerned may be informed accordingly. Sd/- H.P. Mukhopadhyay Joint Secretary.” (Quoted) 14. According to Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3, the Petitioners did not have a locus standi in view of what has been stated in Paragraph-2 of the Writ Petition to the effect that the Petitioner No. 1 is the grandson of the founder member of the Sargachi High School and the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are guardians of the students. This argument cannot be considered inasmuch by Order dated 10.2.2005 the Hon’ble Single Judge has already held that the Petitioners did have the locus standi. Moreover, the Order was appealed against and upon a perusal of the appellate order quoted above, it is evident that save and except making some interim directions, the Order dated 10.2.2005 was not interfered with. 15. Mr. Moreover, the Order was appealed against and upon a perusal of the appellate order quoted above, it is evident that save and except making some interim directions, the Order dated 10.2.2005 was not interfered with. 15. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya has made some general arguments to the effect that allegations made cannot be considered unless they are supported by necessary pleadings. Such submissions cannot also be taken into consideration in view of the reports and the statements of the Respondent No. 5 as well as the Reports of the Additional District Magistrate quoted above and also in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Single Judge made on 10.2.2005 which have been quoted above. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition must succeed and it is accordingly allowed to do so. 16. At this stage, Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharjee submitted that the Petitioners have not made any prayer for removal of the Respondent No. 3 from the post of Headmaster nor have they prayed for cancellation of his appointment and therefore, no such relief can be granted. 17. According to this Court, the aforementioned submissions are only for being rejected inasmuch as right from the beginning, the issue that was before this Court was as to whether the Respondent No. 3 was at all eligible and it was in that context that on 10.2.2005 the Hon’ble Single Judge had passed an Order holding inter alia that the Respondent No. 3 admittedly had not got the approval of the Director of School Education and therefore, his Lordship was prima facie satisfied that there was no approval of the Order of appointment. It further appeared to his Lordship that the Respondent No. 3 had passed his M.Sc. Degree with only one year’s course whereas in India, the requirement was having to undergo a two year’s course. This would also be evident from the relevant Circular which has been quoted above and therefore, if the very appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as contrary to law, then there is no difficulty for this Court to mould the relief and pass Orders accordingly. 18. This would also be evident from the relevant Circular which has been quoted above and therefore, if the very appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as contrary to law, then there is no difficulty for this Court to mould the relief and pass Orders accordingly. 18. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observations/findings made on 10.2.2005 and considering the facts and circumstances referred to above, the said Order passed on 10.2.2005, is now made absolute and it is held that the Respondent No.3 did not have the necessary qualification to act as a Headmaster. Accordingly, only because the Writ Petitioners have made a simple prayer for a direction upon the Respondent No. 3 to produce his original Certificates, that, by itself, does not mean that a Declaration cannot be made to the effect that the Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to hold the post of a Headmaster. It is therefore declared that the Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to hold the post of a Headmaster. The Writ Petition is allowed. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions. (Tapen Sen, J.) …………July, 2010 S.B. A.F.R./N.A.F.R. Later After this Judgment was pronounced in Court, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 prayed for stay. Having considered the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to stay this Judgment. Accordingly, prayer for stay is refused.