Approval of organizing teachers' service is contingent upon their recognition in official inspections; prior service alone does not guarantee entitlement if not documented.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

(1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to seek redress of their grievance regarding the alleged inaction of the respondents to approve their service in the school, as the organizing teachers. According to the petitioners who are the teachers and the non-teaching staff of the school, they have been engaged and working therein continuously without any break, since from 1993. However, allegedly even after recognition of the school as the Junior High School in 1971 and upgradation thereof as a Secondary school on and from December 27, 1998, their services have not been approved therein. Such inaction by the respondent Authorities, according to the writ petitioners, tantamount violation of the Government Notification No. 117 SE(S) dated February 24, 1995 [in short “No.117”] as well as the various orders passed by this Court earlier. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking redress that necessary order be passed granting approval of service of the writ petitioners.

(2) The case has a checkered history. The school was unrecognized till 1971, when for the first time the Government granted recognition to the same, as a Junior High School. In 1998, steps were taken for upgradation of the school as the Secondary school. For the said purpose, the District Level Inspection Team [in short DLIT] has performed inspection on August 5, 1998. The fact remains undisputed that the petitioners’ names did not find place in the report of DLIT. According to the petitioners that was a motivated omission in order to intentionally and unlawfully deprive the petitioners from being approved as the organizing teachers in the school.

(3) A letter of the Secretary of the school dated December 4, 1998, followed, but in vain. On December 27, 1998, the school was upgraded.

(4) The petitioners thereafter filed their first writ petition being W.P. No. 43 (w) of 1999. The same was disposed of vide order dated February 9, 2000, directing the respondent to consider the prayer as above of the writ petitioners. though accordingly considered, but their prayer has been rejected vide an order dated May 26, 2000.

(5) The second writ petition by them followed, being WPA 8288 of 2000 [in short WP 8288]. By virtue of an interim order passed in the said case, an inspection was held to verify the claim of the petitioners. According to the report submitted by the respondent No. 5/ Assistant Inspector of Schools, Purba Medinipore, and a corrigendum thereafter, the petitioners were reported to have been engaged in the said school since from the year 1993. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated May 13, 2002, in which the Court has held inter alia that, the school was functioning to render education to the students of classes IX and X since long before its actual formal recognition and this fact has also been approved by the DLIT during its inspection; that the writ petitioners were rendering service for which they were required to be considered for approval, in terms of Clause-4 of notification No.117; an order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Purba Medinipore, Tamluk rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for approval was set aside by the Court; the Government was directed to consider the petitioners’ prayer for approval, considering their past services and the provision of the notification as above. Again, the respondents considered the prayer of the petitioners for approval and rejected the same vide an order dated September 10, 2003.

(6) In the instant writ petition the petitioners have been represented by Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel. He has submitted on the ba