SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 309

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.
Banipada Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPCR 6 of 2008 With CAN 1 of 2017 (Old CAN 5415 of 2017)
Decided on : 24-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ekramul Bari, Sk. Imtiaj Uddin.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, Mr. Somnath Naskar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment given beyond the sanctioned strength cannot be declared legal, and thus, the refusal to approve the appointment was upheld.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Appointment of Assistant Teacher - West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 - 1224-Ed(S) dated 5.12.1987, 895-Edn(SE) dated 30.09.1992 - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher of Jambani Bani Vidhyapith and the refusal of approval by the District Inspector of Schools based on the extant rules relating to the staff pattern. The court analyzed the legal provisions and their interpretations, ultimately holding that the petitioner's appointment, given beyond the sanctioned strength, cannot be declared legal, and thus, the refusal to approve the appointment was upheld.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought approval for his appointment as an Assistant Teacher, which was refused by the District Inspector of Schools based on the extant rules relating to the staff pattern. The petitioner retired during the pendency of the case and made a prayer for release of his retirement benefits upon approval of his appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's appointment, given beyond the sanctioned strength, cannot be declared legal, and thus, the refusal to approve the appointment was upheld.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher could be approved based on the extant rules relating to the staff pattern.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment given beyond the sanctioned strength cannot be declared legal, and thus, the refusal to approve the appointment was upheld.

Final Decision: The writ petition and its connected application were dismissed, and the refusal to approve the appointment was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher of Jambani Bani Vidhyapith ( in short, the school) on the basis of the report of the District Level Inspection Team (in short, the DLIT).

2. Before addressing the issue, the essential facts which are crucial to the resolution of that issue must be noticed.

3. The school was recognised as II-class Junior High School w.e.f. 1.1.1974 and the appointments of three teachers including of one Subal Ch. Karan having qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. were approved in science group of the school.

4. In view of the alarming rise of the roll strength, the Managing Committee decided to upgrade the school as IV-class Junior High School. Further to such decision, the school authority following a selection process appointed four teachers including the petitioner, namely, Anit Kumar Panda (B.A., B.Ed.), Manik Ch. Das (B.A.), Banipada Das (B.Sc.), the petitioner herein and one Dilip Kumar Sen (B.Sc. Bio) for proposed upgraded section of the school i.e. for classes VII and VIII. In terms of the letter of appointment, the petitioner joined the school as an Assistant teacher on 3.4.1986.

5. In terms of its resolution adopted on 26.04.1990, the Managing Committee issued a formal letter of appointment vide. dated 27.04.1990 in favour of the petitioner for the post of Assistant teacher in the school on substantive basis with a rider that petitioner would be entitled to salary as admissible under G.A. Rules from the date of approval of his appointment by the jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools.

6. The DLIT inspected the school and its activities on 06.02.1987 and also on 13.03.1993. The petitioner’s name featured in both the inspection reports.

7. The school was upgraded to IV-class Junior High School by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education vide. its Memo. no. S/83 dated 15.3.1993 w.e.f. 01.05.1991 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and the appointments of two teachers, namely, Anil Kr. Panda, B.A., B.Ed. and Manik Ch. Das, B.A. were approved w.e.f. 1.12.1993.

8. Shortly thereafter, the Head of Institution vide. his letter dated 15.4.1993 forwarded the names of three teaching and one non-teaching staff including the petitioner’s seeking approval of their appointments.

9. On 30.06.1993 by adopting a resolution, the Managing Committee placed the petitioner in science group whereas two other teachers, namely, Lakshman Ch. Dandapat and Manik Ch. Das were placed in social science group.

10. On receipt of a communication dated 4.10.1993 from D.I. of Schools, the school authority produced all the original resolution books and attendance register of the staff of the school, as sought for by the D.I. of Schools for verification so that process of according approval to the petitioner’s appointment could be expedited but ultimately, the same did not produce any fruitful result.

11. The petitioner along with other staff of the school approached the competent authority with numerous representations for approval of their appointments but despite being so approached, such representations were left unattended.

12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a writ petition vide. C.O. no. 19922(W) of 1995, which was disposed of on 9.11.2000 with following direction:

    “… I direct the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Medinipore to take immediate appropriate steps in accordance with law in the matter of according approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher of the said school as an organising teacher after taking into account of the aforesaid report of the Administrator dated 15th December, 1999 along with other relevant records and reports as are available for considering the matter of approval of the petitioner as an organising teacher of the school

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top