SK. MD. SALIMAR RAHAMAN Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was appointed in the Madrasah in the year 1995. The Madrasah got its recognition vide memo dated March 7, 1996 with retrospective effect from 1st May, 1995. Service of the writ petitioner was not approved on the plea that on the date when the inspection team visited the Madrasah at that point of time the writ petitioner was not a teacher of the Madrasah and as such he did not feature in the inspection report.

(2.) Learned Counsel, appearing for the Madrasah, Board has drawn my attention to the relevant circular/Government order No. 117-SC(S)/4A-50/93 dated Feb. 24, 1995 wherein it is clarified that the case of the organising staff for approval of their appointment would be considered subject to certain conditions, those conditions include that the names of such teachers recorded in the final inspection report leading to such recognition would only be considered for approval. Relying on the said Government order, learned Counsel, appearing for the Board, submits that the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered as he was not a teacher of the said school when the final inspection report was submitted. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has drawn my attention to the memo dated 19th April, 1996 signed by Sri Prasanto Ray and C. S. Banerjee, A. L/S. (S.E.), Hooghly. The writ petitioner's name features in the -said memorandum where he was shown to have been appointed on Nov. 1, 1995. As per revised staff pattern 14 teachers were approved and the writ petitioner had been shown as the organising staff in the said memorandum appearing at page 33 of the writ petition.

(3.) The Government order which has been relied upon by the respondents should be interpreted in a manner so that it can be given a reasonable and logical meaning to find out the true spirit of the said Government order. The Court should examine under which circumstances the said Government order had been issued. In the preamble of the said Government order, it appears that the State Government intended to set up a guideline for granting approval to the appointment of the organiser teachers and non-teaching staff. On scrutiny of the conditions, stipulated in the said Government order, the intention of the Government can be apparent, the Government wanted to retain the old teachers and the non-teaching staff of the concerned school which is being upgraded or recognised, at the same time, the Government was cautious to see that there is no surplus staff added to the burden of the said school. The Government was also cautions while stipulating the said guideline that no unnecessary recruitment is made immediately prior to the recognition. In the instant case, it appears that prior to recognition, the service of the writ petitioner was required by the said Madrasah. Hence, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was engaged by the Madrasah for some other considerations to get the benefit of the said circular. The inspection is a necessary factor on the basis of which the State Government acts in consideration of the application for recognition and/or upgradation. Such inspection is made to appraise the Government about the present affairs of the said school or Madrasah. Ultimate recognition comes on consideration of the inspection report as such the recognition is sometime given with retrospective effect to cover the delay caused due to the formalities to be performed at the Government level prior to recognition. So far as the Madrasah is concerned, it is only made known about the recognition when the order of recognition communicated to them. In the instant case, the order has been passed on 7th March, 1996 much prior thereto the writ petitioner was given appointment.