Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 652 (CAL)

Chandana Basu v. Director of School Education

2013-09-09

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
JUDGMENT Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to approve the petitioner’s appointment with effect from January 1, 1986 which is the date of recognition of the concerned school instead of June 1, 2002, to grant benefit of scale of pay and other allowances with effect from January 1, 1986 and other reliefs. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Kusumba Junior High School in the district of South 24 Parganas. When the District Level Inspection Team inspected the school on April 20, 1983 they found the petitioner to be one of the teachers. The school was subsequently given recognition with effect from January 1, 1986 for classes V and VI and thereafter it was also recognized for classes VII and VIII from January 1, 1987. The list of teachers mentioned in the approval letter, however, did not contain the name of the petitioner. Although initially the school requested the District Inspector of Schools subsequently the school authorities did not allow the petitioner to attend the school and sign the attendance register. Since the petitioner’s representation for grant of approval of appointment as an organizer teacher was not considered by the respondents she filed a writ petition in the year 1992 which was dismissed by a learned single judge of this court. An appeal therefrom was disposed of by a division bench by directing the Director of School Education to consider the grant of approval of the petitioner’s service as an organizer teacher and in case she was found to be surplus the authorities were directed to recommend her case to the School Service Commission for being placed in any other school in the district. At this stage it is not necessary to consider in details the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that she joined the school on July 1, 2010 in the permanent post and approval of her appointment was given with effect from June 1, 2002 instead of January 1, 1986. The petitioner is aggrieved by this. Her other grievance is that she has not been given the arrears since June, 2002 to October, 2009. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed with the reliefs sought for as mentioned earlier. The petitioner is aggrieved by this. Her other grievance is that she has not been given the arrears since June, 2002 to October, 2009. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed with the reliefs sought for as mentioned earlier. It may be mentioned that in spite of liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition the respondents did neither file any affidavit nor did they contest the petition in spite of service of notice. A perusal of the order dated July 6, 2004 passed by the division bench reveals that the chief consideration before the court was that the petitioner had worked as an organizer teacher till the school was granted recognition as a junior high school. This was an admitted fact and the division bench had directed the Director of School Education to consider the grant of approval to the petitioner’s service as an organizer teacher in the said school. A careful reading of this order unmistakably shows that the division bench had considered the petitioner’s role as an organizing teacher and it was also made very clear that this order was passed only because the school was granted recognition as a junior high school and subsequently as a high school long before the School Service Commission came into operation. Although the State did not contest the application either by filing an affidavit or by appearance the order impugned in the writ petition does not appear to be suffering from any infirmity calling for any interference by this court. The fact remains that the petitioner’s name was not approved in the year 1986. The reason for that has been explained in the order. Her appointment could not be approved following recognition of the school either as II class junior high school or IV class junior high school due to her being the 8th standard organizer teacher and as such in excess of the 6th Assistant Teachers. The list of the teachers sent by the school on February 10, 1987 to District Inspector of Schools also supports her serial no. as 8th organizer teacher. It may be mentioned that after the approval letter by the Director of School Education was received the Secretary of the school requested the District Inspector of School to allow additional teachers and the petitioner herself in the writ petition has admitted that her name appeared in serial no. 9 for absorption/ consideration. as 8th organizer teacher. It may be mentioned that after the approval letter by the Director of School Education was received the Secretary of the school requested the District Inspector of School to allow additional teachers and the petitioner herself in the writ petition has admitted that her name appeared in serial no. 9 for absorption/ consideration. The facts which have been agitated in this petition were much the same as in the earlier writ petition. But the division bench did not direct the respondents authorities to grant approval to the petitioner’s appointment with effect from January 1, 1986. As the petitioner’s name was not considered in the year 1986 she could only be accommodated against a vacancy which had fallen out of those six posts on June 1, 2002. The Director of School Education was not expected to give approval to the petitioner which could not be done earlier as the petitioner was in excess of the 6th Assistant Teachers. Thus the order does not suffer from any infirmity to call for any interference. The respondents are, however directed to release the financial benefits which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to in law as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.