Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Yunus Ali & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 23503 (W) & 23504 of 2017
Decided On : 23-04-2019
For the Petitioners:Sidhartha Banerjee, Arunava Ganguly, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Joytosh Majumder, Learned Government Pleader, Chaitali Bhattacharya, Pinaki Dhole, Avishek Prasad, Advocates.
Regularization of temporary appointments is limited to irregular appointments, and mere long-term service as a temporary employee does not confer a right to regularization.
Headnote:
Regularization - Temporary Teachers - West Bengal School Service Commission Act, West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act - The judgment discusses the principles of regularization of temporary teachers, distinguishing between illegal and irregular appointments, and the limitations on seeking regularization in absence of statutory rules. The court emphasizes that only irregular appointments could be regularized and that mere long-term service as a temporary employee does not confer a right to regularization. The judgment also highlights the exceptional circumstances where arbitrariness by the State may lead to relief under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, appointed as temporary teachers, sought regularization of their appointments. The main issue was the denial of regularization by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Burdwan.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointment of the writ petitioners as temporary teachers was illegal and not entitled to regularization. It emphasized that mere long-term service as a temporary employee does not confer a right to regularization. The court also rejected the argument of arbitrariness by the State in rejecting the application for regularization.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of regularization of the writ petitioners' temporary appointments as teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment establishes that only irregular appointments could be regularized and that mere long-term service as a temporary employee does not confer a right to regularization. It also emphasizes the exceptional circumstances where arbitrariness by the State may lead to relief under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs, and it was made clear that the employment of the writ petitioners was not affected by the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. The grievances raised and issues involved in the two writ petitions are common arising out of a common order dated 8th August, 2017, and accordingly, they were heard together and are being decided conjointly. The main issue in the writ petitions is that the writ petitioners were appointed as temporary teachers and are now seeking regularization of their temporary appointments.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts in writ petition no. 23503 (W) of 2017 are being taken into consideration and are chronologically delineated herein below:
a. By way of a resolution dated 27th January, 1987 an unanimous decision was taken by the members of the Managing Committee of the Banksimulia Group Junior High School, P.O. Pariharpur, Burdwan - 713373 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said school') and a recruitment process was undertaken for appointment of teachers in the said school.
b. A letter dated 26th March, 1987 was issued to the writ petitioner by the said school for his appointment as a temporary teacher in the said school for a period of six months.
c. Through a letter dated 19th November, 1987 by the said school to the writ petitioner it was informed that his service as a temporary teacher has been extended for six months with effect from 23rd November, 1987.
d. A writ petition bearing W.P. No. 16637(W) of 2001, was filed by the writ petitioner before this Court in order to direct the concerned State authorities for the approval of the writ petitioner as an assistant teacher in the said school.
e. Through an order dated 19th October, 2001 the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 16637(W) of 2001 was disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools to get the concerned school inspected by the District Level Inspection Team (hereinafter referred as 'the D.L.I.T') within four weeks and also to take necessary steps for approval of the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the said school within a period a six months. It may be noted that no appeal was preferred against this order.
f. Pursuant to the order dated 19th October, 2001 an inspection was conducted by the D.L.I.T on 19th December, 2001 and report filed on 2nd May, 2002. The D.L.I.T report stated that the writ petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher temporarily for six months on a consolidated Pay of Rs. 125/- per month with effect from 27th March, 1987 in the meeting of the then Managing Committee (Vide No.5/87, dated 21st March, 1987) against an unsanctioned post when the school was a Class IV Junior High School and all sanctioned posts of Teachers remained filled in.
g. Thereafter, the present writ petitioner, filed a contempt application bearing W.P.C.R.C. No. 11259(W) of 2003 alleging that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Burdwan has failed to comply with the order dated 19th October, 2001 passed by the Court.
h. On 24th September, 2004 the concerned District Inspector of schools affirmed an Affidavit-in-Opposition in the contempt proceeding bearing W.P.C.R.C. No. 11259(W) of 2003 stating that the approval of the service of the writ petitioner as the Assistant Teacher could not be complied with only for the want of information from the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal.
i. By the order dated 18th July, 2005, the contempt rule in W.P.C.R.C. No. 11259(W) of 2003 was discharged by the Court recording the submissions made by the respondents that the present District Inspector Schools would make his best endeavour to persuade the Principal Secretary, Education Department so that a decision is taken at the earliest.
j. In the year 2007, the writ petitioner once again approached the Court with another writ petition bearing no. W.P. No. 15282(W) of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no effective measure were taken by the concerned authorities to approve the writ petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of the said school.
k. The writ petition bearing no. W.P. No. 15282(W) of 2007 was di
