SUBHRANGSHU CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history. The parties have moved several round of litigation before this court.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1988 after accorded the approval by the District Inspector of School. Because of the vacancy of the post of Head Teacher, the petitioner was entrusted to work as teacher-in-charge upon granting the necessary approval in the year 1988 itself. Till the year 1991, the Managing Committee appointed one Atul Chandra Roy as Headmaster of the said school. The said Headmaster worked till the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as teacher-incharge. The petitioner was allowed to function in such capacity with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently by circular dated March 5, 2001, the State declared that the school which is upgraded to High School from a Junior High, the Headmaster working therein should be approved as a Headmaster of the upgraded High School provided he had a requisite qualification. Subsequently, the publication was made for filling up the vacancy for the post of Headmaster in the said school i.e. Uttar Sankarpur S.C. High School, Uttar Dinajpur where the petitioner was working as a teacher-in-charge.

(3.) IT is undisputed that a vacancy for the post of Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School was advertised and the petitioner offered his candidature by submitting an application to the School Service Commission and was, thereafter, recommended by the said Commission to Purgram S.C. High School for being appointed to the post of a Headmaster. The private respondents, thereafter, initiated a writ proceeding before this court being W.P No. 21128 (w) of 2006. Challenging the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School on the ground that the same is procured by practicing fraud and misrepresenting the actual state of affairs. Initially, a point was taken therein that the private respondents being the guardians of the students have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a Headmaster in Purgram S.C. High School which was accepted by the Hon'ble Single Bench as a consequence whereof the writ petition was dismissed. The said order of dismissal was assailed by the private respondents in intra court appeal (FMA 260 of 2008) which was eventually allowed. The Division Bench held that the petitioner did not have a requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of a Headmaster and such appointment was procured by giving a false declaration. In an application, the Division Bench not only declared the said appointment to be illegal but also directed the petitioner to refund the salaries, allowances and other monetary service benefits enjoyed by him by holding the post of a Headmaster of Purgram S.C. High School.