Back
High Court Of Calcutta
V. S. Sirpurkar, CJ. And Aniruddha Bose, J.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
SK.MANURUDDIN - Respondent
WP 49 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/03/2006
APPROVAL OF ORGANIZERS OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS - ORGANIZING TEACHER - MADARSAH - [WEST BENGAL BOARD OF MADRASAH EDUCATION ACT, 1995] - The Court held that the Government Order No. 511-SE (S) dated 29. 3. 2000, which is the current Memo in the field, is applicable to the instant case. The said order clarifies that the existence of any organizer teacher or non-teaching staff in a 4-Class Junior High Madrasah upon their upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education on the recommendation of the State Govt. is not considered acceptable and no person will be treated as organizing staff in a 4-Class Junior High madrasah upon upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education. The Court further held that the concept of an organizing teacher in an upgraded High madrasah is abhorrent to the Government which is clear from the language of the Memo No. 511 and the reluctance on the part of the Government to accept such teachers emanates from the fact that there is in reality no necessity of the 9th and 10th Classes because if the students take admission in the 9th and 10th Classes of such Madrasah, they cannot be sent for madhyamik examination Thus, the very purpose on the part of the students of joining such Madrasahs would be frustrated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be teachers and non-teaching staff in a madrasah called Satgharah High Madrasah, Kolkata, approached the Court seeking approval as teachers and consequent benefits. The madrasah was initially recognized as a Junior Madrasah and later upgraded to a High Madrasah. The petitioners' claim was opposed on the ground that their names were not found in the DLIT inspection and that the Secretary of the Managing Committee had filed affidavits stating that they were not appointed. The petitioners succeeded in the first round of litigation, wherein the Court directed the Director of School Education to inquire into their claim. The Director, however, rejected their claim based on a Government Circular which excluded persons like the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order before the Single Judge, who partly allowed their petition and directed a fresh inspection. The petitioners then filed a review petition, relying on another judgment of the same Judge wherein approval was granted to similarly situated petitioners. The Single Judge, relying on a Supreme Court judgment and a Division Bench judgment of the High Court, accepted the review application and granted approval to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to approval as organizing teachers in the madrasah. The Court relied on Government Order No. 511-SE (S) dated 29. 3. 2000, which clarified that the existence of any organizer teacher or non-teaching staff in a 4-Class Junior High Madrasah upon their upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education on the recommendation of the State Govt. is not considered acceptable and no person will be treated as organizing staff in a 4-Class Junior High madrasah upon upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education. The Court further held that the petitioners' names were not found in the first DLIT inspection, which was conducted for the purpose of upgradation of the madrasah. The Court also noted that a second inspection report, which was ordered by the Court, appeared to be suspicious as it made a complete volte face about the existence of the petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to approval as organizing teachers in the madrasah? 2. Whether Government Order No. 511-SE (S) dated 29. 3. 2000 was applicable to the instant case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to approval as organizing teachers in the madrasah as their names were not found in the first DLIT inspection, which was conducted for the purpose of upgradation of the madrasah. 2. The Court further held that Government Order No. 511-SE (S) dated 29. 3. 2000 was applicable to the instant case and that the said order clarified that the existence of any organizer teacher or non-teaching staff in a 4-Class Junior High Madrasah upon their upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education on the recommendation of the State Govt. is not considered acceptable and no person will be treated as organizing staff in a 4-Class Junior High madrasah upon upgradation by the West Bengal of Madrasah Education.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the writ petition to be dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS judgement shall dispose of both the appeals being APO No. 118 of 2004 and APO No. 184 of 2004, which are identical. The questions being common, the parties have also addressed us jointly. However, for the sake of convenience. we shall first take up APO No. 118 of 2004.
( 2 ) THE appeal is filed challenging the judgement passed by the learned single Judge reviewing his own judgement and thereby holding that the original writ petitioners were entitled to get the approval as the teachers in madrasah and were also entitled to get the consequent benefits.
( 3 ) FEW facts would help us understand the controversy involved. All the petitioners are claiming to be the teachers and a non-teaching staff in a madrasah called Satgharah High Madrasah, Bardipara Road, Kolkata. They claimed that they were appointed in this Madrasah to teach 9th and 10th classes on 30. 5. 1996. This Madrasah is said to have been started in 1975 but got the recognition as a Junior Madrasah 011 7. 3. 1996. Thereafter, an application was made to the Government for permission to start the High madrasah for teaching 9th and 10th Classes in the month of April, 1996. The madrasah started those Classes of 9th and 10th in anticipation of the permission from the Government and also proceeded to appoint these teachers. Ultimately, with effect from 22. 9. 2000, the said Madrasah got the recognition as a High Madrasah in the sense that the earlier Junior Madrasah was upgraded as High Madrasah. The petitioners were not getting the approval though they claimed the status of the organizing teachers in this Madrasah and, therefore, they approached the Court by way of a writ petition. Their claim was opposed on the ground that their name was not found in the dlit inspection made by the Department and, as such, they could not have claimed the status of the organizing teachers. It was also given out to begin with, that there were affidavits filed by the Secretary of the Managing committee that these teachers were not appointed at all. This inspection seems to have taken place on 18. 5. 2000. Be that as it may, in their first round of litigation the petitioners succeeded, in the sense that in that writ petition being W. P. No. 3010 of 2000, the learned Single Judge M. H. S. Ansari, j. directed that the writ petition should be treated as a representation and for that purpose the copy of the writ petition should be placed by the writ petitioners before the concerned authorities and, thereafter, an injury should be made by the Director of School Education to find out as to whether the claim of the teachers was justified or not. In pursuance of that, the Director of School Education directed the Assistant Director of School Education to conduct the inquiry who went to the concerned School in February, 2001 and recorded his findings on facts wherein he accepted the fact of the appointment of all the seven writ petitioners. It was seen that separate attendance registers were being maintained for the abovementioned petitioners and it also appeared from the verification of the attendance registers that they were serving continuously since their appointment from 3. 5. 1996. The attendance registers were also found to have been authenticated by the teacher-in-charge of the said Madrasah and that record was being maintained by the Madrasah management.
( 4 ) THE Director of School Education on the basis of the report of Assistant director passed an order dated 26/27th of December, 2001, whereby he came to the conclusion that in spite of the aforementioned inspection conducted by the Assistant Director in view of a latest Circular of the State Government being No. 511-SE (S) dated 29. 2. 2000, the petitioners could not be considered as organizing staff of the Madrasah. It seems that the Director took a view that the appointments of the petitioners were illegal as according to the director, no prior permission was taken for opening Class 9th and 10th from th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
