MURARI MOHAN MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to him as per law all retiral benefits as well as interest calculated from the date of approval of appointment and arrears of salary, to pay pension and for other reliefs. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that he was an organising teacher of a secondary school and he was appointed as its Headmaster with effect from January 2, 1970. From September 29, 1973 he was prevented by the secretary of the school from taking any class and the petitioner was not even allowed to sign the attendance register. The secretary had informed the petitioner subsequently that the managing committee was unable to take any decision in his favour but if the higher authorities or any judgement allows the petitioner to join the committee will have no objection.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of in the year 2003 with a direction upon the Director of School Education to dispose of the petitioner 's grievance by passing a reasoned order. The petitioner subsequently filed another writ petition challenging the ex parte decision passed by the Director of School Education on July 22, 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated May 2, 2011 by a single Judge of this court wherein it was the finding of the court that the secretary of the school himself was not willing to allow the petitioner to join his duties. The court found that the allegation of the petitioner had substance. The ex parte order was set aside and the Director of School Education was directed to rehear the matter in the light of the observations made in the said order upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing wherein he would be entitled to submit all the documents.

(3.) IT appears from the order impugned that it was decided to make an in situ enquiry by three officers. The report as submitted by the team revealed that they had interrogated the then secretary of the school, the ex-teacher-in-charge of the school and other teachers and they concluded that they could not get any evidence from the in situ enquiry to substantiate conclusively that the petitioner was prevented from entering the school forcefully. From this and after considering some of the Government Orders of 1977, 1978 and 1980 it was held that the school authority was rightly not in a position in the year 1995 to allow the petitioner to join in view of the leave rules. Moreover the post held by the petitioner was filled up by another incumbent in view of the prior permission accorded by then District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools had also referred to a Government Order, dated August 19, 1977, which stipulated that the teachers and other employees who were actually prevented from attending schools or performing their normal duties were to be immediately allowed to join their duties and they should join it within one month from the date of the order or might at their option continue to remain in their alternative employment in any other educational institution within the state. The respondent authority held that in spite of the said orders the petitioner preferred writing only some type of common letters by post in more or less the same language to the functionaries of educational authorities even after 1980. He also observed that the petitioner did not register any General Diary or First Information Report with the police station or did not submit any application at the receiving section of any educational authority. The Director of School Education further held that there are different fora to register the complaints against a functionary and as a last resort one may take shelter of this court. The petitioner preferred to take the shelter only in the year 1995, i.e., about 15 years after the publication of the Government Order dated August 19, 1977. From this he concluded that the petitioner preferred to delay and to pass out time. On this groundrelief to the petitioner was declined, because the action taken by him is not in conformity with the condition as stipulated in the Government Order dated August 19, 1977.