STATE OF W B Vs. ALPANA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of West Bengal and its functionaries have challenged the correctness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment passed by learned single Judge.

(3.) The factual background in a nutshell is as under : Respondent No.1 (hereafter referred to as the writ petitioner) filed a Writ Petition bearing No. C.O. 11932 (W) of 1989 before the Calcutta High Court. While the writ petition was pending, interim orders were passed directing the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (in short the Board) to consider whether the claim of the writ petitioner that she was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School i.e. Tangra Prathamik Vidyatan, Calcutta with effect from 2-1-1976, was correct. After examining various documents and taking into account the statements of the writ petitioner and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School it was noted that the document claimed to be the original appointment letter contained several over-writings and appeared to be a manipulated and fabricated document. Further, the resolution of the Managing Committee in respect of the proposed appointment was not produced. In the so-called letter of appointment also, there was no reference to any resolution of the Managing Committee for making the appointment. It was also noted that the school was recognized with effect from 1-1-1974 and several conditions were stipulated. One of these conditions stipulated was that no additional teacher was to be appointed or suspended from service without the prior approval of the Directorate of Education. In the list of approved teachers, name of the writ petitioner did not find place. All appointments to the post of primary teachers were to be made from the panel prepared by the District Primary School Council duly approved by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. In view of the factual position, as noted, it was held that the appointment, if any, as claimed by the writ petitioner is in gross violation of the statutory rules, orders and procedures and there was no genuine grievance which could be considered. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22nd November, 1999. The report of the Board was totally brushed aside and a direction was given to the Chairman, District Primary School Council to re-consider the case in the light of the fact that she was working for a long time and to regularize her appointment in the said post within a stipulated time, after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after passing a reasoned order. Though it was pointed out by the present appellants that in view of the findings recorded by the Board, the question of regularization does not arise, the High Court was of the view that the said order of the Board was the subject matter of challenge and the order was set aside subject to decision in the writ petition. No reason was indicated as to why the order of the Board was being set aside. That order of learned single Judge was challenged by the present appellants before the Division Bench. By the impugned order, the Division Bench held that the object of rendering primary education cannot be lost sight of and merely because the writ petitioners name was not included in the panel of selected teachers, she cannot be deprived of the benefits of her claim. It was noted that there is a dispute as to whether the Managing Committee was appointing authority or the District School Board was the appointing authority. The High Court held that since the name of the writ petitioner was included in the list of unapproved teachers for a long time, this gives her right for approval even if her appointment was made dehors the Rules. There may not be any right on the appointee to claim regularization, but the State cannot take advantage of any legal principle and deny approval. Accordingly, the view of learned single Judge was affirmed.