Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 189 (CAL)

Nijam Uddin Molla v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-03-07

J.K.BISWAS

body2012
Judgment 1. THE six petitioners in this WP under art.226 dated July 27, 2007 are seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to approve their appointments as organising teachers in Meyanapur Meherabia High Madrasah in South 24-Parganas. 2. WITH effect from January 1, 1975 the institute in question was recognized as a 4- Class Junior High Madrasah. The Managing Committee of the institute decided to open classes IX and X; in consequence of the decision the Committee took a resolution dated December 25, 1995 (at p.59) to appoint the petitioners as teachers in the unrecognized section. The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the recognised section of the institute submitted an application dated February 2, 2001 and August 28, 2003 (at p.73) requesting the District Inspector of Schools for inspection of the institute for upgradation. Finally, the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education issued an order dated May 28, 2007 (at p.75) upgrading the Junior High Madrasah to a High Madrasah. 3. COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that though the DLIT inspecting the institute in 1996 checked the attendance registers signed by the petitioners as teachers working in the unrecognised upgraded section thereof, names of the petitioners were not included in the inspection report. His submission is that, on the facts, the respondents should be directed to make an inquiry for ascertaining the correctness of the petitioners claim and approving their appointments as organizing teachers. 4. ADMITTEDLY, names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the inspection report that led to upgradation of the institute from a 4-Class Junior High Madrasah to a High Madrasah. Correctness of the report leading to the order of upgradation issued by the Board was never questioned by the Managing Committee of the Junior High Madrasah that applied for recognition of the unrecognised upgraded section. Hence I do not find any reason to pass an order directing an inquiry for ascertaining whether the petitioners were actually working as organising teachers in the unrecognised upgraded section of the institute. 5. BESIDES, no law entitles the petitioners to claim approval to their appointments in consequence of recognition of the unrecognised upgraded section of the institute by the Board. The law on approval of appointments of organizing teachers has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in Manindra Nath Sinha and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2006(4) CHN 513 . The law on approval of appointments of organizing teachers has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in Manindra Nath Sinha and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2006(4) CHN 513 . In view of the law explained in the decision, the petitioners are not entitled to claim approval to their appointments as organizing teachers. 6. IN Manindranath Sinha and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., 2006(4) CHN 513 the Division Bench held, inter alia, as follows: "16. IN our view, in the Parent Act, namely, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 and rules framed thereunder to achieve the object of the said Act, there is no provision for appointment of any Organizing Managing Committee or organizer-teacher nor is there any authority conferred upon such Organizing Managing Committee to appoint any teacher or employee before the recognition of the school and conferment of the prescribed sanction strength under the Act and the Joint Secretary of the Education Department by issuing certain circulars cannot lay down the guidelines for approval of any teacher or employee illegally appointed by the so-called Organizing Managing Committee. If the initial appointment is illegal according to the Parent Act and the rules, the Government by issuing notification through its Joint Secretary cannot approve or regularize such illegal appointments." For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs.