Appointments of 'Organising Staff' Cannot Be Deemed Illegal When State Fails to Provide Schools; Financial Aid Must Benefit Existing Staff: Calcutta High Court - 2025-09-13

Calcutta HC Orders Approval for 'Organising Staff', Citing State's Failure to Provide Schools

Kolkata: In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the State of West Bengal to approve the appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff who were instrumental in establishing and running a junior high school long before it received official recognition and financial aid. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that such appointments cannot be termed "illegal" when they fill a void left by the State's failure to provide educational facilities.

The judgment emphasizes that financial aid, once granted, should benefit the existing 'organising staff' who sustained the institution, rather than being used to displace them with new recruits through the School Service Commission.

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by Dhrubajyoti Roy and four other 'organising staff' members of Lakshman Chandra Jageswar 4-Class Junior High School. The school was established in 1975 by local residents because there was no other educational institution within a nine-kilometre radius. The petitioners were appointed by the organising committee and have been serving the school since before its first official inspection in 2013.

After a protracted legal battle, which included an appeal to a Division Bench and a dismissed Special Leave Petition by the State in the Supreme Court, the school was granted financial aid effective from 2021. However, the State sanctioned six new teaching posts to be filled through the West Bengal School Service Commission, refusing to approve the appointments of the petitioners who had been running the school for years. The petitioners sought approval of their appointments and release of salaries from the date the financial aid was granted.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Contentions:

- Mr. Kamlesh Bhattacharya, representing the petitioners, argued that their presence and service were officially recorded in the 2013 District Level Inspection Team (DLIT) report, which formed the basis for the school's recognition.

- He highlighted that the conditions for receiving financial aid, as clarified by a Division Bench, included paying prescribed salaries and ensuring service security for the existing staff. This implied an obligation to regularise them.

- Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. , he asserted that their engagement was not "illegal" but a necessary step to provide education where the State had failed.

- He further argued that the State's reliance on principles from State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi to deny their claim was a misapplication of the judgment's intent.

State's Defence:

- Mr. Ranjan Saha, appearing for the State, contended that the financial aid was granted with a clear condition: all new appointments for the six sanctioned posts must be made through the School Service Commission as mandated by the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997.

- He stated that the school authorities had failed to provide the necessary documentation to initiate this formal recruitment process, and therefore, the petitioners' "unapproved" appointments could not be regularised.

Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Justice Chatterjee, in a detailed judgment, sided with the petitioners, rebuking the State for its "inequitable and unjustified" stance. The Court underscored the State's failure to fulfil its constitutional duty under Article 21A to provide accessible education.

Key Observations from the Judgment:

"Denying the existence of such a managing committee and the corresponding teaching and non-teaching staff... amounts to a refusal to acknowledge the ground reality. The consequence of such denial would be to displace the very managing committees and staff members who had been instrumental in establishing and operating the school. This, despite the State‟s willingness to reap the benefits of the institutions established and sustained by their efforts, without offering them any recognition, approval or any benefit in return."

The Court drew a clear distinction between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. Citing the Supreme Court's observations in Prabir Kumar Ghosh , the bench held that the petitioners' appointments were not illegal, as they were made to ensure the functioning of a much-needed school.

"In a situation such as that the engagement of the writ petitioners cannot strictly be called to be illegal. They were definitely imparting education in keeping with the letter and spirit of the legislation enacted by the Parliament being Right to Education Act.” (Quoting the Supreme Court)

The Court concluded that the Division Bench's earlier order intended for the financial aid to be utilized for the benefit of the existing staff. The State's subsequent action of sanctioning new posts to be filled via the Commission, while simultaneously releasing funds that were being used to pay the petitioners, was deemed an attempt to circumvent its responsibility.

Final Decision and Implications

The Court directed the District Inspector of Schools to approve the appointments of the five petitioners with effect from the date financial aid was granted to the school. It further ordered the release of all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, within eight weeks.

This judgment provides significant relief to 'organising staff' across the state who have dedicated years to running unrecognised schools. It establishes a strong precedent that the State cannot simply take over a functioning institution established by private initiative without acknowledging the contributions and securing the future of the individuals who made it possible.