IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 15930 of 2016

Basir Uddin Molla

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Biswarup Biswas

: Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain

: Ms. Varsha Roy

For the State : Mr. Pinaki Dhole

: Mr. Avishek Prasad

For the respondent No.6/

School Authority : Mr. Dwijdas Pattanayak

Judgment on : 28.10.2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The writ petitioner claims to be the organising teacher and seeks

relief in the instant case that the respondent authority directed to approve his service in the school. He has challenged here an order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Howrah [in short “the DI”] dated June 3, 2016, by dint of which

the DI as rejected the petitioner’s prayer for approval in service.

2. Jhamtia High School was recognised up to class – VIII, though was continuing with classes – IX & X, since from the year 1997. According to the writ petitioner he was appointed vide an appointment letter dated September 22, 1997, issued by the Secretary of the said school. He says that since thereafter he has been continuously working in the said school though his service has not been approved therein. Hence the petitioner is aggrieved and has filed the instant writ petitioner to seek appropriate relief.

3. Mr. Biswarup Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that in spite of the petitioner having provided all the necessary documents in support of his appointment and continuous service in the said school, respondent authority has failed to consider the same and thereby acted beyond the documentary proof and only whimsically and arbitrarily, to find that the appointment letter is a fake one and the writ petitioner has not discharged duty in the said school. He has sought for appropriate relief for the writ petitioner in this case.

4. Mr. Biswarup Biswas has relied on the following 2 judgements to buttress the argument made. Those are (i) dated September 2, 2022 in FMA 2089 of 2015 [Niranjan Sahoo vs State of West Bengal]; and (ii) dated May 24, 2024 in WPA 21410 (w) of 2012 [Nimai Charan DasAdhikari vs The State of West Bengal]. The Courts have held therein inter alia that at the time of recognition of the school, the government had a duty to take note of the existing situation in the school; that the school cannot run without the teachers and support staff; that in case of recognition of the school it would be construed that the government has recognised a staffed school and not communicated one.

5. The respondent’s person is only contrary that since the school authority has objected to the fact of issuance of any appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner, the document so produced by the petitioner is a manufactured one and not authentic. Also, that the attendance register produced is not the original attendance register of the school, is devoid of any authentication by the school authority and more particularly carries only the entries pertaining to the two persons including the writ petitioner. The respondent says that in absence of any material sufficient and cogent, petitioner’s claim is only baseless and his grievance is unfounded. That the writ petitioner is not entitled to be approved in service and the instant writ petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed.

6. Fact remains that the school authority as well as the Secretary of the school has declined to accept that any appointment letter was ever issued to the writ petitioner to appoint him in the said school. They have also denied the fact that the petitioner has ever performed any duty in the said school as claimed. The report of the District Level Inspection Team (DLIT) has not mentioned the name of the petitioner to be a teacher in the said school. The school was upgraded up to class-X on and from April 1, 2005. At that point of time according to the records of the school, there was no additional teacher employ