IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPA 80 of 2018 Ram Avatar Yadav Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya : Mr. Ashim Halder : Mr. Anirban Saha For the State Respondent : Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, ld. AGP : Ms. Iti Dutta Judgment on : 22.09.2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The writ petitioner, who is an organising teacher of the school, namely Naihati Ananda Swarup High School, and appointed therein on and from January 2, 1984 [vide the appointment letter dated January 1, 1984], has come up for the fourth time before this Court to seek redress of her grievance that in spite of her being duly qualified and sanctioned vacant post being available in the said upgraded high school, her service has not been approved as against the said sanctioned vacant post, by the respondent authority. In this writ petition, she has challenged the order of the respondent/District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Barrackpore, 24 Parghanas North dated October 17, 2017, and has prayed for the relief that the respondent/District Inspector of Schools be directed to approve her appointment as an organising assistant teacher in the said school, following the government notification No. 1224 and No.117, with effect from the date of upgradation of the school, that is, May 1, 2001.

2. The petitioner has been represented by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate, in this case. He has firstly submitted about appointment of the petitioner through a duly formulated recruitment process. Hence, according to the petitioner, there would not be any impropriety as regards the process by dint of which she has entered into the service. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate, has thereafter referred to the fact that since appointment, the petitioner has been continuously and uninterruptedly serving the school with utmost sincerity and diligence. The other relevant points as put forth on behalf of the writ petitioner are that the petitioner’s name appears at the 7th place in the list of organizer assistant teachers of the said school, in the report of District Level Inspection Team [in short ‘DLIT’]. It has been submitted that, hence at the time of recognition of the said school as a Junior High School with effect from January 1, 1986 [vide order dated February 13, 1987], which implied sanction of 6 posts of assistant teachers therein, the writ petitioner was not accommodated.

3. The petitioner says that since the recognition of the school, various other incidents happened, which are worth mentioning and have relevance with the prayer of the petitioner in the instant case. Firstly, that the school authority had applied for grant of two additional posts of assistant teachers in the school, for the language as well as social science group. Be it mentioned here that the writ petitioner has been working as a teacher of subject geography, pertaining to the social science group. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate, would submit that even at the said point of time the school was entitled to the 2 more posts of assistant teachers therein, as per the provisions of the ‘Grant-in-Aid Rules’. He says that the ‘Grant-in-Aid Rules’ provide for sanction of 8 posts of assistant teachers in a school where 6 units were in function. That, since at the said relevant points of time the said school was running with 6 units, therefore in terms of the ‘Rules’

as above, additional 2 posts of assistant teachers were required to be approved by the authority for the said school. The respondent/authority, in terms of the order of this Court dated June 28, 1994, has considered such prayer and rejected the same on October 6, 1994. However, later on in an order dated January 5, 2004, in writ petition No. WP 30621 (w) of 1997, this Court has made certain directions. Following the same, the respondent has sanctioned and created 2 additional posts, vide notification dated Dec