IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that teachers engaged in unrecognized classes can be regularized upon the recognition of the school, provided their appointments were bona fide.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for cancellation of the memo no.IC-1149-LS/03 dated July 31, 2012 as issued by the Commissioner of School Education West Bengal/respondent no.2 herein with a further prayer for passing appropriate direction(s) upon the respondent no.3 i.e. the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Purba Midinipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.I’ in short) to accord approval of the appointments of the writ petitioners as teaching staff of Panchetgarh High School in District Purba Medinipur.

2. By the aforesaid memo dated July 31, 2012 the respondent no.2 rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners for permanent absorption in the aforesaid school.

3. In course of his submission Mr. Bari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Annexure P1 collectively (page nos. 25 -30 of the writ petition) being the photocopy of the letter of appointment of the writ petitioners as ‘organizing teachers’ without remuneration to teach the students of Class IX and Class X of the said school. Drawing attention to page nos.34-37 of the writ petition it is submitted by Mr. Bari that in an earlier round of litigation a Division Bench of this Court while disposing MAT 421 of 2003 by its order dated 05.09.2011 allowed the said appeal as preferred by the present writ petitioners with a direction to the District Magistrate Purba Medinipur to cause an inspection of the aforesaid school without being guided by the previous report as submitted by District Level Inspection Team (hereinafter referred to as ‘DLIT’ in short) and thereafter the said District Magistrate was directed to take a decision in the event it is found that the present petitioners are working in the said school since inception and in the event the writ petitioners fall within the definition of ‘organizing teachers’. Drawing attention to page no.43 of the writ petition it is argued by Mr. Bari that in course of inspection the then District Magistrate by its order dated 05.04.2012 in Misc. Case no.17 of 2011 came to a finding that the then Managing Committee of the aforementioned school misguided the present writ petitioners by engaging them as teachers of the said school without following the recruitment procedure of the relevant period and at the same time the Managing Committee did not mention the names of the writ petitioners before DLIT as well as the said Managing Committee also did not refer the names of the present writ petitioners to the DI of School for getting the recruitment of the writ petitioners approved by the competent authority and on the other hand the said Managing Committee misled the petitioners years together by allowing them to take classes at the said school.

4. Mr. Bari submits further that at the conclusion part of the said order the then District Magistrate of Purba Medinipur recommended for permanent absorption of the present writ petitioners in the said school by the Director of School Education, if rules permits. It is submitted by Mr. Bari that while passing the order dated July 31, 2012 the respondent no.2/ authority failed to visualize the true implication of the recommendation dated April 05, 2012 by the then District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur and thus wrongly rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners for their permanent absorption as ‘organizing teachers’ of the said school. It is further submitted by Mr. Bari, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners that the respondent no.2 in its said order dated July 31,2012 had wrongly interpreted the reported decision of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

5. It is further argued that while passing the said order the respondent no.2 has failed to understand the true spirit of the meaning and implication of the ‘organizing teachers’ and thus wrongly held that the appointment of the present writ petitioners in the said school