MONORANJAN MAITY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions are directed against the inaction on the part ef the District School Board, Midnapore to consider and dispose of the applications made by the organiser teachers and Managing authority of these schools for grant or recognitien under Section 54 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 (Bengal Act VII of 1930) and thereby depriving the legitimate claim of the petitioners who are organiser teachers of the said schools to be considered for appointment by the board.

(2.) THE facts of these petitions are stated hereinbelow : the petitioners Manoranjan Maity and sakti Prosad Sarkhel stated that in 1965 a managing authority was formed by 7 members who organised a school named as "halderberh Primary School" in Sage halderberh, P. S. Chandrokona, District Midnapore for imparting primary education to the children of the said village and the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Head Teacher and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an assistant Teacher in the said school. An application has been submitted to the respondent No. 3, sub Inspector of Schools, chandrakona Circle on 30th October, 1975 by the President, Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school for recognition of the said school by the District school Board. The said application was duly received by the Sub inspector of Schools, Chandrakona Circle I. The said application was made in compliance with the form prescribed by Section 54 read with rules framed under Section 66 (2) (p) of the bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. It has been stated that the school was visited by the respondent No. 3 twice- once on 20 9. 69 and another on 25. 1. 72 and the respondent No. 3 submitted his reports which was annexed collectively as annexure 'c' to the petition. In his reports the respondent no 3 recommended for recognition of the school as there was no school in the said village. It has been stated further that the petitioners are working in the said school as teachers since the inception of the school and they have got the requisite educational qualification for being appointed as teachers of primary schools recognised by the Board. The President, Ad Hoc committee of the District School Board, midnapore had issued a letter to the Savapati, chandrakona-1 Pachayat Samity, chandrakona-1 Block requesting him to arrange for selection of site in the schoolless villages namely Halderberh and Gareria and also for making gift of land in favour of the board by a registered deed of gift so that new primary schools by the Board may be set up there, It has also been stated that the Ad Hoc Committee, District School board, Midnapore, the respondent No. 1, also appointed one Sri Nirmal Chandra Hati as an Assistant Teanher to organise a primary school in the Village Halderberh under Chandrakona I Circle. This letter has been annexed as annexure 'f' to the petition, the petitioner sent a letter demanding justice to the respondent No. 2 as well as to the President, Ad Hoc Committee, district School Board, the respondent no. 1 requesting them to cancel the aforesaid appointment and to consider their application for recognition of the school organised on private initiative and also to appoint them as primary teachers of the said schools. Thereafter having received no reply this application has been made by the petitioners for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to remove the petitioners from service and not to appoint respondent Nos. 7 to 9 as teachers of the halderberh Primary School. There was also a prayer for a writ of or in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to forward the records of this case to this court so that the said letter issued may be quashed and set aside. A prayer for ad interim order of injunction was also made restraining the respondents from removing the petitioners from service as teachers as well as restraining the respondents from appointing the respondents 7 to 9 as teachers of the said aforesaid school till the disposal of the Rule.

(3.) A Rule was issued and an ad interim order of maintaining status quo was also made for a limited period subsequently the said interim order was extended till the disposal of the Rule with this clarification that status quo so far as the petitioners are concerned will continue.