SUPRIYA CHATTOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is an assistant teacher having been appointed long back in October, 1978. When a memorandum dated December 21, 2001 (annexure P-3 to the writ petition) was issued prohibiting private tuition by the assistant teachers and making an obligation for each teacher to submit declaration every three months declaring that he/she is not engaged in private tuition of students of any school or any other institution had not engaged in any kind of business or trade and not acting as any agent of any company/corporation, the same has been challenged by the petitioner contending that such action of the respondents calling upon the petitioner to file such a declaration affects the dignity of the petitioner. Therefore, compelling the petitioner to file such declaration and in default withholding grant resulting in non payment of salary to the petitioner affects the petitioner's right to life and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, such provision requiring the petitioner to give such a declaration is without any reason and therefore, arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a teacher and is in such a noble profession that she cannot be asked to file such a declaration and that too every three months as it affects the dignity of a teacher.

(3.) Relying on various provisions of the management rules including rule 28 and its various sub-rules, it is contended that statutory provisions are already there prescribing the terms and conditions of service of a teacher including the provisions and procedures for their dismissal and there is no provision for withholding salary of the petitioner directly or indirectly by withholding grant in aid to the extent the same covers the salary and other allowances of the petitioner. Reference was made to relevant circulars prescribing the Government policy including the very first circular issued in the year 1961 and the subsequent circulars issued from time to time by the Government and it is contended that there is no provision for quarterly release of grant in aid and its withholding for non compliance of any requirement including submission of a declaration quarterly. The petitioner has a right to get salary if she discharges her duties, and such right flows from statutory provision contained in sub rule 7 of rule 28 of the management rules and therefore, by administrative instruction such salary cannot be withheld by withholding grant in aid.