Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 793
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Rituparna Gari – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 952 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Mr. Souvik Ganguly
For the State : Mr. Shamik Ul Bari
A minority institution holds the authority to appoint teachers, and denials of service approval must be justified within legal frameworks; arbitrary rejection lacks validity.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 30 - Educational Appointment - Writ petition filed by Assistant Teacher in a minority institution seeking service approval after appointment in a sanctioned post. Court finds no substantial infractions in recruitment process, concludes petitioner's claims are valid and warrant approval. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 8)
(B) Judicial Review - Rationale behind decision-making - Court determines that the respondent's order rejecting service approval was unreasonable and arbitrary, thereby justifying reversal of said order. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a minority institution in 2016 but was denied service approval by the District Inspector of Schools, prompting her to file a writ petition seeking redress.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order dated June 17, 2019, was found to be unreasonable, irrational, and arbitrary, leading to the conclusion that it must be set aside.
Issues: Whether the procedures for the petitioner's appointment adhered to applicable rules and warranted service approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the school had the authority to appoint and that the respondent’s allegations concerning procedure irregularities lacked merit, thus deserving of the petitioner's service approval.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner entitled to service approval from the date of appointment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rights and appointment process in minority schools. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for approval of petitioner's service. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of the recruitment process and compliance. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. court's finding of unreasonableness in di's order. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision and directives for compliance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The school namely, 'Narayanpur Mission Girls' School [HS]', is a Christian Minority Institution, protected under the Article 30 of the Constitution of India and guided and regulated by the Special Rules of 1974. The writ petitioner has been appointed therein, as an Assistant Teacher of the subject Physics, vide appointment letter dated February 9, 2016. She has joined in service on and from February 15, 2016 and has been working since thereafter continuously and uninterruptedly. She is aggrieved due to her service not being approved till date by the respondent authorities and in particular with regard to the order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Birbhum [in short “the DI”], dated June 17, 2019, by dint of which the DI has rejected her prayer for approval in the service. Hence, she has filed the instant writ petition to seek appropriate relief.
2. According to the writ petitioner, she had responded to an advertisement published in the newspaper on January 26, 2015 [The Statesman] and was called for the interview to be held on December 16, 2015. Later she has been granted appointment letter dated February 9, 2016 and ultimately, she has joined in service with effect from February 15, 2016. The post she has joined and working in since then has been sanctioned on an earlier date, vide order of the Commissioner of School Education, Government of West Bengal dated June 26, 2012. The respondent/DI has granted prior permission for recruitment in the said sanctioned post, vide his order dated December 17, 2014. Hence, according to the writ petitioner there is no infirmity, irregularity and/or illegality in the entire process of her appointment and she is entitled to be approved in her service, which allegedly has been unauthorisedly and illegally denied to her.
3. Mr. Rajendra Banerjee who has represented the writ petitioner in this case has mentioned about an order of this Court dated January 21, 2019, passed in the first writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.No. 15852 (w) of 2016. In the same the Court has directed for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from February 2016 to January 21, 2019 and also for consideration of the petitioner's prayer for approval of service. It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed in a post sanctioned vide order of Commissioner of School Education, Government of West Bengal dated June 26, 2012. It has been submitted further that though prior sanction of the respondent was not imperative for the said Minority Institution to initiate and conduct a process of recruitment for appointment in the said post, the same was sought for and granted vide the order of the respondent/DI dated December 17, 2014. That the process started with an open advertisement in the newspaper and was followed by an interview. The writ petitioner having succeeded therein, was appointed as the Assistant Teacher of the school and joined in service on and from February 15, 2016. According to Mr. Banerjee, the grounds taken by the respondent/DI are not sustainable, given no illegality or impropriety in the entire process of recruitment of the writ petitioner. He submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner's service may be approved.
4. The State respondent per contra has supported the impugned order and it is submitted that for the reasons as stated in the same, the petitioner's prayer is baseless and not maintainable. Dismissal of the instant writ petition is the prayer of the respondent.
5. On careful perusal of the impugned order in this writ petition dated June 17, 20
