Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 747 (CAL)

Hemanta Kr. Basu v. State of West Bengal

2025-10-28

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. (1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to seek redress of their grievance regarding the alleged inaction of the respondents to approve their service in the school, as the organizing teachers. According to the petitioners who are the teachers and the non-teaching staff of the school, they have been engaged and working therein continuously without any break, since from 1993. However, allegedly even after recognition of the school as the Junior High School in 1971 and upgradation thereof as a Secondary school on and from December 27, 1998, their services have not been approved therein. Such inaction by the respondent Authorities, according to the writ petitioners, tantamount violation of the Government Notification No. 117 SE(S) dated February 24, 1995 [in short “No.117”] as well as the various orders passed by this Court earlier. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking redress that necessary order be passed granting approval of service of the writ petitioners. (2) The case has a checkered history. The school was unrecognized till 1971, when for the first time the Government granted recognition to the same, as a Junior High School. In 1998, steps were taken for upgradation of the school as the Secondary school. For the said purpose, the District Level Inspection Team [in short DLIT] has performed inspection on August 5, 1998. The fact remains undisputed that the petitioners’ names did not find place in the report of DLIT. According to the petitioners that was a motivated omission in order to intentionally and unlawfully deprive the petitioners from being approved as the organizing teachers in the school. (3) A letter of the Secretary of the school dated December 4, 1998, followed, but in vain. On December 27, 1998, the school was upgraded. (4) The petitioners thereafter filed their first writ petition being W.P. No. 43 (w) of 1999. The same was disposed of vide order dated February 9, 2000, directing the respondent to consider the prayer as above of the writ petitioners. though accordingly considered, but their prayer has been rejected vide an order dated May 26, 2000. (5) The second writ petition by them followed, being WPA 8288 of 2000 [in short WP 8288]. By virtue of an interim order passed in the said case, an inspection was held to verify the claim of the petitioners. though accordingly considered, but their prayer has been rejected vide an order dated May 26, 2000. (5) The second writ petition by them followed, being WPA 8288 of 2000 [in short WP 8288]. By virtue of an interim order passed in the said case, an inspection was held to verify the claim of the petitioners. According to the report submitted by the respondent No. 5/ Assistant Inspector of Schools, Purba Medinipore, and a corrigendum thereafter, the petitioners were reported to have been engaged in the said school since from the year 1993. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated May 13, 2002, in which the Court has held inter alia that, the school was functioning to render education to the students of classes IX and X since long before its actual formal recognition and this fact has also been approved by the DLIT during its inspection; that the writ petitioners were rendering service for which they were required to be considered for approval, in terms of Clause-4 of notification No.117; an order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Purba Medinipore, Tamluk rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for approval was set aside by the Court; the Government was directed to consider the petitioners’ prayer for approval, considering their past services and the provision of the notification as above. Again, the respondents considered the prayer of the petitioners for approval and rejected the same vide an order dated September 10, 2003. (6) In the instant writ petition the petitioners have been represented by Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel. He has submitted on the basis of the notification No.117, at the same entitles the writ petitioners, being the organising teacher of the school to be approved in their respective services in the school, as and when the school is formally recognised by the Government. He has elaborately relied on the provisions of the notification as above. He has further stated that a school which has been running and catering educational need of the surrounding area for years together, cannot be expected to have functioned without aid of teachers and non-teaching staff. He has elaborately relied on the provisions of the notification as above. He has further stated that a school which has been running and catering educational need of the surrounding area for years together, cannot be expected to have functioned without aid of teachers and non-teaching staff. Therefore, with the school being formally recognised by the Government and posts being sanctioned therein, the organising teacher is bestowed with the vested right of being approved therein as against the said sanctioned vacant posts, before farther process can be undertaken for recruitment of teachers and non-teaching staff report the said school, now recognised. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel, the fact that the present petitioners have been working in the school in their respective capacity since 1993 has remained undisputed in the case. That being so, he says, in accordance with the provisions of notification No.117, the petitioners are entitled to be approved in their respective services in the said school, the moment the school is recognised/upgraded. He submits that the Courts have held that time and again that past service of the organising teachers and non-teaching staff of the school has to be given credit by approving them in service, no sooner the school obtains recognition. In this regard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Niranjan Sahoo vs State of West Bengal [2022 (5) CHN (CAL) 80] . He has also mentioned that questions cannot be raised as regards any illegality or irregularity in the recruitment process of the writ petitioners here insofar as admittedly at the time of recruitment of the petitioners in 1993, the school was not recognised and so long the school was unrecognised one the question of applicability of any recruitment rules should not arise. In support of this, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel has referred to the other Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hemoprova Sikdar vs The State of West Bengal & Others [1998 WBLR (Cal) 223] . He has further mentioned a judgment of this Court in Rakhal Chandra Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported at 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 22943 and submitted that the respondent authorities have already complied with the Court’s order as made therein. (7) By citing the facts, law and the precedents as above, Mr. He has further mentioned a judgment of this Court in Rakhal Chandra Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported at 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 22943 and submitted that the respondent authorities have already complied with the Court’s order as made therein. (7) By citing the facts, law and the precedents as above, Mr. Bhattacharya learned counsel for the petitioners have sought for appropriate relief for his clients by allowing this writ petition. (8) The respondents are represented in this case and also have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, to controvert the case made out by the writ petitioners here. The respondents have inter alia contended that firstly, the petitioners’ names do not find place in the DLIT report, as such there is no prima facie material available to show that the petitioners have been working in the school prior to its recognition. Secondly that pursuant to the order of the court the prayer of the petitioners has been considered by the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal and reasoned order was passed on September 15, 2003, by dint of which they are prayer for approval in service was turned down and also provisions of the Notification No. 117 were found not applicable in case of the present petitioners. The said order being in vogue and not challenged by the writ petitioners, stands as final and accepted by the writ petitioners. Thirdly that it has been a consistent policy of the Government that organising teachers and staff who have been working in the school without approval of the competent authority would not be considered as eligible for the benefit of approval of their service. (9) Records reveal that the order of the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, dated September 15, 2003, has not been challenged in the instant writ petition, though the fact is that pursuant to the Court’s order in CPAN No. 242 of 2003 arising out of W.P.A. No. 8288 of 2000 the Principal Secretary has considered and rejected the petitioners’ prayer, finding the same not to be covered under the Notification No. 117. This fact as ventilated by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has not been controverted, disputed or denied by the petitioners by filing any reply thereto. This fact as ventilated by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has not been controverted, disputed or denied by the petitioners by filing any reply thereto. In that view of the matter, the said order seems to have reached finality and should act as binding upon the parties. As a matter of fact, the Court notices that in addition to all other facts as mentioned above, being elaborated in the writ petition, the petitioners have failed to mention about the said order of the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal dated September 15, 2003. The Court is constrained to find this to be nothing less than suppression of a material fact before the Court by the writ petitioners. In either way, the writ petitioners would not be entitled to any relief in the instant case. Therefore, the Court does not find any necessity to enter into the merits of the case. (10) Hence, WPA No. 4281 of 2016, is dismissed. (11) Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.