Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay And Tarun Kumar Das, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Md. Hassan & Others. - Respondents
M.A.T. 894 OF 2012
Decided on : 30.8.2012
For the Appellants: Mr. Sadananda Ganguli, Mr. Pinaki Dhole.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Mr. Ekramul Bari, Mr. Md. Mojnu Sk.
The District Inspector of Schools (SE) is not justified in refusing to approve the appointment of the organising teaching and non-teaching staff of the upgraded section of a Madrasah on the ground that the records submitted by the school authority are not valid, where the District Inspector of Schools (SE) only expressed an apprehension that the school authority prepared the records to suit the needs of the writ petitioners for the purpose of approval of appointment.
Headnote:
HIGH MADRASAH - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS - ORGANISING TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING STAFF - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF MADRASAH EDUCATION - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS OF ORGANISING TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING STAFF OF THE MADRASAH - CONDITIONS - VALIDITY OF RECORDS - INSPECTION - HELD, THE CLAIMS OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS FOR APPROVAL OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS AS ORGANISING TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING STAFF OF THE UPGRADED SECTION HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS (SE) HOOGHLY WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON AND APPROPRIATE GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants/petitioners were appointed as organising teaching and non-teaching staff of an unrecognised section of a Madrasah. They filed a writ petition seeking approval of their appointments. The Division Bench of this Court directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly to cause an inspection into the records maintained by the Madrasah and arrive at a fresh decision with regard to the grant of approval to the services of the writ petitioners. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly expressed doubt about the validity of the records submitted by the school authority and refused to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly only expressed an apprehension that the school authority prepared the records to suit the needs of the writ petitioners for the purpose of approval of appointment and on the basis of such apprehension, refused to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners. The Court further held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly should have approved the appointments of the writ petitioners as organising teaching and non-teaching staff of the upgraded section of the High Madrasah since the said writ petitioners fulfilled the required conditions in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly was justified in refusing to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners on the ground that the records submitted by the school authority were not valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly was not justified in refusing to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners on the ground that the records submitted by the school authority were not valid. The Court held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly only expressed an apprehension that the school authority prepared the records to suit the needs of the writ petitioners for the purpose of approval of appointment and on the basis of such apprehension, refused to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners. The Court further held that the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly should have approved the appointments of the writ petitioners as organising teaching and non-teaching staff of the upgraded section of the High Madrasah since the said writ petitioners fulfilled the required conditions in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and directed the authorities concerned to take necessary steps in compliance with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge without any further delay but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
In Re : C.A.N. 5031 of 2012
1. The learned Advocate representing the appellants/petitioners has filed informal paper books in relation to the appeal today in Court. The same be kept on record.
2. This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2009 passed by a Learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said Learned Judge finally disposed of the writ petition on merits by directing the District Inspections of Schools (SE) Hooghly to approve the appointments of the appellants/writ petitioners as teaching and non-teaching staff of the concerned High Madrasah.
3. From the records, we find that the writ petition was filed by eight writ petitioners and out of the said eight writ petitioners, six were appointed as Organising Assistant Teacher and the rest two as Group-D staff by the Organising Managing Committee of the unrecognised Section of the concerned Madrasah.
4. Series of litigations were initiated by the appellants/writ petitioners for approval of their appointments as Organising teaching and non-teaching employees of the Madrasah concerned.
5. The Division Bench presided over by Altamas Kabir-J. (As His Lordship then was) by the judgment and order dated December 22, 2004 considered the claims of the aforesaid writ petitioners and directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly to cause an inspection into the records maintained by the said Madrasah in respect of the Organising Section of Class IX and X.
6. The operative part of the order passed by the aforesaid Division Bench are set out hereunder :
“In such circumstances we modify the order passed by the learned single Judge and dispose of the appeal with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly, to cause an inspection into the records said to have been maintained by the Madrasah in respect of the organised sections of Classes IX and X of the Madrasah whichwould include the Attendance Register, students’ Register, Minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee, appointment letters issued to the writ petitioners and other contemporaneous correspondence and arrive at a fresh decision with regard to the grant of approval to the services of the writ petitioners as the teaching and non-teaching staff of the upgraded section of the Madrasah. Such an exercise should be completed upon notice to the Madrasah authorities and the Madrasah authorities shall provide authenticated copies of such documents to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly, who shall grant receipt therefor to the authorities of the Madrasah, and, thereafter, proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. While making a fresh appraisal of the facts involved, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly, will ignore the earlier reports of the inquiries conducted both by him and also by the Director of School Education.”
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench, the records were produced before the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly for inspection and the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly most unfortunately expressed doubt about the validity of the records submitted by the school authority in respect of the organising teaching and non-teaching employees of the said Madrasah.
8. The District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly refused to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners and recommended for appointment of teaching staff through School Service Commission and non-teaching staff through employment exchange.
9. The relevant extracts from the report of the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Hooghly as mentioned by the Memo No. 1689/Law dated 30.11. 2005 are set out hereunder :
“The records of the petitioners as displayed by the school authority seems to have been prepared by the school authority to the needs of the petitioners as required for approval of appointment. It is seen that these records i.e. teachers’ attendance registers, pupils attendance register are not au
