HEADMASTER Vs. JAINAL ABEDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Headmaster of Balijole High School in the district of Uttar Dinajpur, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, against the order dated 10.9.03 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9545(W) of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the appeal.

(2.) As will appear from the materials on record, the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 claims to have been appointed as an organiser assistant teacher in the Bio-Science Group in the Shankarpur H.M.U. Junior High Madrasa, also situated in the district of Uttar Dinajpur. It appears that the Madrasa which was an organised Madrasa, applied for grant of recognition to the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board and pursuant thereto an inspection team visited the Madrasa on 8th March, 2000, but the name of the writ petitioner, who was not present in the school was not recorded by the inspecting team. Subsequently, the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board granted recognition to the Madrasa with effect from 1st May, 2000 upto class VIII. After grant of such recognition, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.). Uttar Dinajpur, approved the appointment of the teachers who were found to be present at the time of inspection but since the petitioner's name did not appear in the inspection report, his service was not approved.

(3.) The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, for incorporating his name in the report of the inspection team so that his service could also be approved. Inasmuch as, no steps were taken on the basis of such representation, the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 moved a writ petition, being W.P. No. 3673(W) of 2001, which was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 22nd March, 2001, with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to such order, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, caused an enquiry into the petitioner's claim and came to a finding that although the petitioner was in fact an organiser teacher of the Madrasa in question he had been victimised and his name had not been included in the inspection report of the District Level Inspection Team. On the other hand, in violation of the existing rules, the service of two commerce graduates was approved, although it was necessary for the school to have a bio-science teacher after approval. In his report the District Inspector of Schools observed that a wrong had been perpetrated by the previous District Inspector of Schools who was the Member-Secretary of the District Level Inspection Team and that in connection with several matters, he had been prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to cheating and conspiracy. However, the District Inspector of Schools expressed his inability to accord approval to the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 since according to the staff pattern the service of six teaching staff in the Madrasa had been approved. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, the writ petitioner- respondent No.l herein filed another writ petition, being W. P. No. 12905 (W) of 2001, which was taken up for consideration on 13th March, 2002 in the presence of the learned counsel for the State and the District Inspector of Schools concerned. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioner had been made the victim of circumstances and that he himself was not a party to any fraud or sharp practice. Accordingly, the matter was sent to the Director of School Education, West Bengal to decide the matter in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Court. While disposing of the matter, the learned Single Judge directed the Director of School Education, West Bengal to take appropriate steps for creation of an additional post to be filled up in the light of the report of the D.I. of Schools. However, in the event such an additional post was available in the district, in that case, priority should be given to the petitioner for appointment therein, since he was a victim of circumstances, by according approval to his service.