Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 61 (CAL)

Bipin Kumar Senapati v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-01-18

MAHARAJ SINHA

body2012
JUDGMENT MAHARAJ SINHA,J 1. THE writ petitioner herein is essentially seeking regularisation or approval of his appointment as an assistant teacher in Gopabandhu Shramajibi Vidyalaya, 52/E, Beninandan Street, Calcutta 700 025. Since the other prayers in the writ petition are merely incidental, those need not be specifically mentioned here. 2. GOPABANDHU Shramajibi Vidyalaya is a primary school consisting of four classes (Class I to IV) and was established way back in the year 1928. The school was first recognised by the Government of West Bengal in the year 1945 with one head teacher as an aided school. 3. AS the number of students of the said school rose it was not possible to manage the school with one head teacher and the writ petitioner who was then a 'Class IV' employee of the school applied for the post of a teacher and was appointed as an assistant teacher by the then administrator of the school with effect from 1 September 1979. As an assistant teacher he was to receive Rs.100/- per month and his appointment was subject to approval by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) Calcutta. 4. SINCE there was no Oriya knowing candidate in the school and since the petitioner knew Oriya language, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Calcutta thought it fit to call the petitioner for an interview for preparing a panel of assistant teachers in Oriya and Urdu and the writ petitioner appeared for such interview. 5. ON 26 March 1986, the head teacher of the school wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Calcutta, requesting him to consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically and absorb him as a regular staff. 6. ON 21 March 1989, the head teacher wrote to the Commissioner for linguistic minority in India (Eastern Region) that although the total number of students of the school rose to 152, there were only 2 (two) approved teachers and that was insufficient to manage the classes. 7. A panel was thereafter prepared in the year 1990 and the writ petitioner was empanelled as the 5th candidate therein. It appears that the panel could not be prepared earlier due to an order of injunction of this Court passed in a pending proceeding. 8. 7. A panel was thereafter prepared in the year 1990 and the writ petitioner was empanelled as the 5th candidate therein. It appears that the panel could not be prepared earlier due to an order of injunction of this Court passed in a pending proceeding. 8. ON 19 May 1990, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Calcutta, stating that since he had been working as an assistant teacher since 1979 and since he was empanelled as the 5th candidate, his appointment or service should be regularised so that he could be a permanent assistant teacher of the school concerned. 9. ON 29 April 1991, the head teacher of the school wrote a letter to the Chairman, Calcutta District Ad-hoc Primary Council, to the effect that when the said school was recognised by the Government in 1945, the Government regularised the appointments of only two teachers and no further teacher was appointed from the date of establishment of the school in 1928. By this letter the head teacher having regard to the number of students also sought sanction for one or two posts of assistant teachers to run the classes more effectively. 10. BY a letter dated 16 November 1992, the head teacher again requested the Chairman, Calcutta District Ad-hod Primary School Council for approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner as the roll strength of the school became 155. 11. HOWEVER, since the appointment of the writ petitioner was not approved in spite of repeated appeal by the head teacher of the school, the writ petitioner on 29 January 1993 initiated the present writ proceedings for the above relief. 12. HOWEVER, having considered the above facts and the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioner should have been approved much earlier solely by virtue of his long length of service since the petitioner became an empanelled candidate and has been serving the school since the date of his appointment, namely, 1 September 1979 solely by virtue of his length of service. 13. MR. Anami Sikdar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. 13. MR. Anami Sikdar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mrs. Menoka Bhattacharya ?V- State of West Bengal, reported in 1994 (2) C.L.J. page 225 at para 10 and submitted that this Court pronounced its judgment in favour of the writ petitioner, Mrs. Menoka Bhattacharya following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India ?V- Kamdhenu Cattle feed Industries, reported in (1993) 1 S.C.C. page 7 (paras 7 and 8). 14. HOWEVER, I find that the present case is fully covered by the judgment in Rahamat Ali Shah -V- State of West Bengal and Ors. (not reported), in W. P. No.3152 (W) of 2002. Thus, having considered the decision cited by Mr. Sikdar and also the decision in Rahamat Ali Shah (supra), I think the appointment of the petitioner as primary teacher should immediately be regularised so that the petitioner becomes a permanent assistant teacher of the school in question. The authority concerned should at least recognise his status as a permanent teacher of the school concerned after all these years simply having regard to the fact that he has been serving the institution with devotion since the date of his appointment way back in the year 1979 and has an unblemished record as an assistant teacher of the school. 15. IN view of the above, the District Inspector of Schools concerned, namely the third respondent herein is directed to regularise the appointment of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. 16. THE appointment of the petitioner should be regularised with effect from the date of initiation of the writ proceedings, namely 29 January 1993 and on this basis the petitioner will be entitled to receive his salary as a permanent teacher of the school concerned from 29 January 1993. The salary in arrears should, however, be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order by the third respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given expeditiously.