09.09.2025.

Ct.No.7.

as WPA 14086 of 2023 Suprakash Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Saikat Chatterjee.

…..for the Petitioner Mr. Sanjib Das. …..for the State Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Ld. Sr. Adv., Md. Abdur Rakib.

…for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7.

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 24th May, 2022, issued by the District Inspector of Schools, whereby approval of the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Bengali was refused. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents concerned to approve the panel prepared for the said post of Assistant Teacher in Bengali at Sree Sree Ramkrishna Vidyapith, situated at Suri, District Birbhum (hereinafter referred to as “the school”).

2. Mr. Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that pursuant to an advertisement published by the school authority in a vernacular daily on 7th September, 2018, inviting applications from eligible and intending candidates for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in Bengali, the petitioner, being duly qualified, submitted his application for the said post.

3. Upon successfully clearing the selection process, the petitioner secured the first position in the panel prepared for the post of Assistant Teacher in Bengali, and the said panel was duly forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. However, the District Inspector of Schools declined to accord approval to the panel on the ground of certain alleged irregularities.

4. He contends that a bare perusal of the order dated 24th May, 2022 reveals that the District Inspector of Schools declined to approve the panel primarily on the grounds that the advertisement had not been published in conformity with sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the West Bengal (Special Procedures for Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff of Certain Notified Schools) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Rules), and further, that the selection process had not been concluded within the time stipulated therein.

5. He submits that all relevant details were duly disclosed on the website mentioned in the advertisement. He further argues that the time limit stipulated under sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the 2013 Rules cannot be construed as mandatory in nature. It is also contended that the School Education Department of the State itself caused a delay of nearly 86 days in appointing the Government Nominee to the Selection Committee, and such delay cannot be attributed either to the school authority or to the petitioner. Accordingly, he contends that the reasons assigned for declining approval of the panel are not legally sustainable. He, therefore, prays for a direction upon the respondents concerned to accord approval to the said panel.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the school authority, submits that the order dated 24th May, 2022 reflects that approval of the petitioner’s appointment was declined by invoking sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 as well as sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2007. He further submits that the 2007 Rules were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997. Referring to Section 15A of the said Act, he contends that the State Government is empowered, in terms of this provision, to exempt from the purview of the 1997 Act any school or category of schools established and administered by charitable organizations, subject to such conditions, restrictions, and for such period as may be specified in the order of exemption.

7. Referring to Annexure I of Order No. 37-SE(S)/10R- 12/2013 dated 9th January, 2014, he submits that the school, namely Sree Sree Ramkrishna Vidyapith (HS), situated at Suri, District Birbhum, has been kept