ENAMUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the parties. It is submitted at the beginning by the learned Advocate for the petitioner No. 1 that since the other two writ petitioners have already been appointed he is not proceeding with their case. Let the names of the other two writ petitioners be deleted from the writ application.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Managing Committee of the school in terms of the appointment letter dated 31.5.92 in the school in question in the post of Assistant Teacher in Language Group. It is an admitted position in the writ application that the Managing Committee concerned did not follow any recruitment rules while appointing the petitioner. At the material time, there was a recruitment rule issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal which provides, inter alia, for prior permission for such vacancy by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, consideration of the names of candidates registered in died in harness category on first priority basis, and thereafter notification of such vacancy to the Employment Exchange in terms of the direction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned. After that, Managing Committee was required to set up a selection committee for interview of candidates, and thereafter, a panel was required to be placed before the Managing Committee for recommendation and onward reference to the District Inspector of Schools, who was the authority to accord approval to the panel. After having such approval of panel following such selection process, the Managing Committee had the right to appoint a teacher in terms of Rule 28 of the Rules for Managing of Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. (hereinafter referred to as the Managing Rules, 1969). Admittedly, the recruitment rule was not followed, being the recruitment rule of 1991 issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Committee of the school times without number requested the District Inspector of Schools concerned to accord prior permission, but when nothing was done, considering the need of the school the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner. The petitioner is a qualified candidate to held the post.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is working continuously from 1962, it is a fit case of absorption of the petitioner as a post is still lying vacant. Strong reliance has been placed in the judgment passed in the case of Arun Kumar Rout & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1477: [1998(1) SLR 61 (SC)] , being a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Apex Court wherein with reference to regularisation of service of a daily wages, the Apex Court directed their absorption in the sanctioned post.