Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1481
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Tamalika Das – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 30121 Of 2017
Decided On : 04-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswaroop Biswas, Mr. Kamal Mishra, Mr. Pratap Sanfui, Mr. Subhadeep Maitra.
For the Respondents: Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay, Ms. Tapati Samanta, Ms. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Ms. Aninda Bhattacharya.
IMPORTANT POINT
The approval of appointments in Minority Educational Institutions must comply with directives from the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, overriding local administrative authority.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 30(1) - Minority Educational Institutions - Approval of appointment - The writ petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought approval for her appointment in a Minority Institution, which was denied by the District Inspector of Schools citing lack of requisite documents. The court held that the appointment was valid under the Special Rules and the National Commission's order, thus the impugned order was set aside. (Paras 24, 25, 26)
(B) Administrative Authority - The District Inspector of Schools lacked jurisdiction to question the validity of the appointment after the National Commission's directive, which must be complied with. (Paras 23, 24)
JUDGMENT :
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
The writ petitioner is the Assistant Teacher, who was appointed at a Minority Educational Institution i.e. C.N.I. Girls’ Primary School, Budge Budge, District South-24 Parganas. She is aggrieved with the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, South 24-Parganas, dated 6.5.2016 and has thus moved this case before the Court.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed on 23.2.2009 and joined on 24.2.2009 in the said School.
3. She has submitted written representation before the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education on 5.10.2009 with her prayer for approval of her appointment. She submitted this representation along with other six similarly placed Assistant Teachers. The writ petitioner is aggrieved that her representation was never considered by the concerned respondent. She had earlier moved the court by filing a previous Writ Petition No. WPA 25059(W) of 2015.
4. The court vide order dated 8.10.2015 had directed the School authority to submit required papers and documents before District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, South 24-Parganas and that on consideration of the same the said concerned respondent, would grant approval of appointment to the writ petitioner.
5. However, since even after the said order, the writ petitioner did not get redressal of her grievance and the present writ petition was filed. The impugned order was passed on 6.5.2016 in which the District Inspector of Schools Primary Education, South 24-Parganas, had found, as extracted below:-
“Since the school authority did not submit aforesaid requisite papers till date the matter is processed with the papers as submitted by school authority on 07.12.2015. From the appointment letter dated 23.02.2009, as submitted by the school authority on 07.12.2015, I am not a position to ascertain whether the appointment in question is/was against a regular sanctioned vacant post against which salary in the form of basic pay along with other usual allowances have been allowed from Government Exchequer. In this situation the claim of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. The matter is processed in accordance with law in compliance with the order passed by Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak dated 08.10.2015 and disposed off from this end. All concerned be informed accordingly”.
6. Thus the writ petitioner is aggrieved, her prayer being turned down by the said authority.
7. Mr. Biswas appearing for the writ petitioner has stated that the writ petitioner being appointed as a Teacher in a Minority Institution which would be governed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and the Special Rules framed vide the notification dated 23.5.1974, her case must be considered by the respondents, keeping in mind the said factor.
8. Mr. Biswas would also rely on the relevant provision of the Special Rules and an order passed by the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal dated 14.5.1996. Let the relevant portion of the said order be extracted as hereinbelow.
“The school in question in an institution enjoying protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. Special Rules have been framed for the management of such institutions and in accordance with Rule 11 of the said Special Rules……..the school committee is entitled to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, not only temporarily, but also on a permanent basis. Since the school authority enjoy grant-in-Aid it can at best be said that number of teachers to be appointed of the School would have to be determined on the basis of the prescribed teacher pupil ratio. In the event the conditions of the special rules are satisfied, and an appointment is made by the managing committee of the school, the concerned authorities of the Education Department, both Secondary and Primary Branch, will have no option but to accept such appointment as made by the school authorities, in accordance with this Special Rules”.
9. Mr. Biswas would say that in case of an appoint
