ASHOKE KUMAR BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is m application for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge dated 29th January, 1993 passed in CO. No. 13066 (W) of 1992. By the said order the Learned Trial Judge rejected the writ application filed by the appellant-petitioner in which the appellant petitioner prayed for absorption and/or regularisation of his service to the next available vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher in Social Science Group in the Ganganagar Beharilal Ghosh Vidyapith (hereinafter referred to as 'the said school').

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a highly qualified teacher. He is an M.A. in Political Science and also in History. He also holds the degree P.G.B.T. and as such he had better qualification then the requisite minimum educational qualification required for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Social Science Group.

(3.) The appellant petitioner was appointed in a deputation vacancy as Assistant Teacher of the said school and worked in that capacity from 25th September, 1989 to 15th July, 1990 in the scale of Rs. 440-1170 per month under grant-in-aid rules. Even after deputation vacancy came to an end on 15th July, 1990, the appellant petitioner was made to work by the Managing Committee of the said school. As the number of students reading in the said school increased to such an extent for which the approved teachers were wholly inadequate for the purpose and in order to overcome the additional burden and pressure and/or work-load from the shoulder of the approved teachers and in order to give and impart effective teaching to the students the managing committee requested the education authorities for sanction of additional post of teachers in the said school and accordingly, the respondent No. 3, the District Inspector of School (Secondary Education) North-24 Parganas was requested to sanction two posts of Assistant Teachers for the said school. Under the circumstances the service of the writ petitioner opposite party was continued by the managing committee. According to the managing committee, the service of the appellant-petitioner was extended in order to cope with the situation of urgent and emergent nature. The Secretary of the Governing Body issued a letter of appointment on 16th July, 1990 directing the appellant petitioner to continue the service as an Assistant Teacher of the said school till his service was regularised and/or is absorbed permanently. The District Inspector of School submitted a report on 2nd December, 1992 that there were vacancies for teachers to be appointed by the School authorities for the upper class after upgradation. Thereafter on 25th April, one post of Asst. Teacher in Social Science Group in the said school was temporarily sanctioned for a period of two years with effect from 1st April, 1991. The appellant petitioner has alleged that inspite of his officiation to the said post as an Asst. Teacher from 25.9.89 to 15.7.90 with a request to continue in the said post thereafter, which he did an the basis of the assurance of the respondent No. 4, the managing committee of the school that the writ petitioner would be absorbed and regularised in the said post as and when sanctioned, he was not regularised. The most unfortunate part of it is that with. effect from 16th July, 1990 the appellant petitioner rendered service as a duly qualified Asst. Teacher on a wholetime basis till the post is sanctioned by the appropriate authority at a paltry sum of Rs. 50/- per month as against the pay scale of Rs. 440-1170 which he was enjoying up to 15th July, 1990. It further appears that at the time of handing over the letter of appointment on 16th July, 1990 the appellant petitioner was assured by the then Secretary of the said school that if the post was sanctioned and/or approved he would be either absorbed or regularised in the said post. It also appears that the managing committee of the said school decided to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said school for a price of Rs. 45,000/- for improvement and extending the school but as the financial condition of the school was not sound enough it was act possible on the part of the said school authority to purchase the same. According to the appellant petitioner, in order to make provision for money for the purchase of the said plot the school authority proposed to take loan from the appellant petitioner. It also appears that the teachers' council of the said school in its meeting held sometime in July, 1990 adopted a resolution to take loan from the appellant petitioner for that purpose. It was also resolved in the said meeting that the appellant petitioner would be given appointment in the next available post of Assistant Teacher which would be approved and sanctioned by the Educational Authorities. Accordingly, the appellant petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Over and above the father of the appellant petitioner also paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the school authorities. That the said stmt was received by the school authorities and deposited in the school account is not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant petitioner that the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- paid by the appellant petitioner was returned to him on 29th July, 1991 by a cheque without any interest after a period of about 14 months. The appellant petitioner filed a writ application for not absorbing and/or regularising the appellant petitioner in consideration of the fact that he had worked for 10 months in the said school and was working since l6th April, 1990 against the receipt of a paltry sum of Rs. 50/- per month due to the bad financial condition of the said school. The Learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant petitioner solely on the ground that the appellant petitioner wanted to secure a post by paying a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the school authorities and that accordingly, the learned Trial Judge held that the appellant petitioner adopted m unfair stategy by advancing a stmt of Rs. 15,000/- without any interest and another of sum of its. 15,000/- that is also free from interest. Advancing of such loan of Rs. 30,000/- by the appellant petitioner was considered by the Learned Trial Judge as a disqualification earned by the appellant petitioner for getting any job in said school. In this connection, the Learned Trial Judge observed that "this petitioner does not deserve this concession from this court. The managing committee and the District Inspector of School concerned will see that this petitioner should not get a berth in the school and even if otherwise absorbed in any school any particularly in a profession like teaching he will pollute next generation and he will pollute the entire societies where the school is situated."