Back
1996 Supreme(Cal) 351
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J.
Smt. Swapna Roy - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
C. O. No. 8570 (W) of 1988
Decided on: September 6, 1996
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee and Bidyut Baran Biswas for the Petitioner
Mr. Suprokas Banerjee and Ms. Arati Roy for the Respondents
A teacher who has rendered service for a period of not less than three years in a school is eligible for absorption as a regular teacher.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - TEACHER APPOINTMENT - APPROVAL - ABSORPTION OF VOLUNTARY TEACHER - WEST BENGAL SCHOOL EDUCATION RULES, 1973 - RULE 17 - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF TEACHER - SECTION 29 - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - RIGHT TO BE ABSORBED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, rendered voluntary service in a Junior School from 1982 without remuneration. The school was upgraded to a High School in 1986, and the petitioner continued to teach in the school. The petitioner sought approval of her appointment as an Assistant Teacher, but the Director of School Education rejected the request.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been rendering service as a teacher in the school since 1982, and that she was duly qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher. The court also found that the Director of School Education had failed to consider the petitioner's inspection report and the letter seeking approval of her appointment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a right to be absorbed as an Assistant Teacher in the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a specific right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher, and that the order of the Director of School Education rejecting her request was illegal. The court relied on the West Bengal School Education Rules, 1973, which provide that a teacher who has rendered service for a period of not less than three years in a school shall be eligible for absorption as a regular teacher.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Director of School Education and directed him to grant approval of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher with effect from the date of recognition of the school as a High School. The court also directed the Director of School Education to pay the petitioner all arrears of salaries and benefits from that date.
1. The short facts involved in this writ petition inter alia are that the petitioner has been rendering service as a teacher prior to its recognition in the Shaktigarh High School since 1980 when the said school was a Junior School and was not upgraded as a High School. The school was ultimately upgraded as High School with effect from 1.1.1986. Since the school was originally a Junior High School, the school had been trying for upgradation and in the bid of such attempt to get upgradation, the students were admitted and classed were taken for Class IX & X with some of the teachers who had been rendering voluntary service. The petitioner is one of such teacher who has been teaching in the school since 1982 without any remuneration whatsoever as an organiser teacher to organise Class IX & X in the said school.
2. It has been stated by the petitioner that upon the application of the Managing Committee of the school to get the upgradation and recognition for High School by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, there was an inspection conducted by the Govt. of West Bengal through the Assistant Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education (General), Calcutta. The said Assistant Inspector of Schools made a physical inspection in the school on 21st February, 1985. In the said inspection report, which was prepared by him after thorough and roving inspection, he found that the petitioner being qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher of the said school, has been rendering services with effect from 1st January, 1982 without any approval as an organiser teacher.
3. The said report of the Assistant Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education has been annexed to the petition.
4. Since the school was upgraded with effect from the academic session on 1.1.86 the question of absorption of petitioner came into consideration. The Managing Committee of the School immediately applied before the District Inspector of Schools praying for approval and/or regularisation of service of the petitioner who has been rendering services voluntarily in the interest of the institution.
5. The District Inspector of Schools referred the case for taking appropriate action enclosing approval forms. The said letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Calcutta, dated 18.5.1987 has also been annexed to the petition.
6. Since no step was taken by the Director of School Education, the petitioner moved a writ petition whereby B.P. Banerjee, J. directed the Director of School Education to consider the case of the petitioner for approval in accordance with law. The Director of School Education, however, passed order on 29.2.88 whereby the Director accepted the resolution passed by the School Committee and rejected the case for appointment of the petitioner. The said order of the Director of School Education has been challenged in the instant writ petition on 29.2.88.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of School Education did not apply his mind but mechanically took the matter for consideration and dismissed the same on the ground which is not valid or tenable.
8. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of School Education ought to have taken the resolution of the Managing Committee as a primary consideration specially when the fact remains that the petitioner has been serving the institution since 1982 till date as a regular teacher.
9. It has been submitted that five posts of Assistant Teacher in the school are lying vacant on account of upgradation of the school since 1.1.86. The petitioner was appointed by the Secretary of the School in one of the five vacancies for which approval was sought for. As the petitioner holds the requisite qualifications, there is no bar to get her appointment approved in the clear vacancy to which petitioner was appointed with effect from 1.1.1986, the date of recognition as Class X, High Sc
