NAJMUN NESA ANSARI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Mrs. Najmun Nesa Ansari, Mrs. Hamida Parwin and Quiser Jahan respectively being the Teacher -in -charge and teaching staff of an organizing school, namely, Fatema Girls' Junior High School situated at 57A, R.K. Road, Post Office Rishra, district Hooghly praying for approval of their appointment as Assistant Teacher of the said schools since recognized. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23 May, 2006, passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for approval of appointment.

(2.) ON 14th November, 2014, when this writ petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsels for the writ petitioner and the Managing Committee of the school appeared but no one appeared on behalf of the State respondents. A notice was directed to be served upon the learned counsel appearing for the State and, accordingly, a notice dated 17th November, 2014, was served by the learned advocate for the petitioner which is kept with the record. However, despite service of notice no one appeared on behalf of the State respondents. Briefly, the petitioners' case is that for the fourth time this writ petition has been moved by the three writ petitioners seeking approval of their appointment as organizing teaching staff of Fatema Girls' Junior High School, which is, according to the petitioner, the only Urdu medium Girls' School in the district of Hooghly. The school was established by the local people in 1982. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1st February, 1983, petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 2nd July, 1993 and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 8th December, 1996, as it appears from Annexure P -2 respectively at pages 59, 60 and 61 of the writ petition. It is the positive case of the petitioners that they have been rendering their services to the school till date. District Level Inspection Team carried out inspection and ultimately, the school was recognized on 1st August, 2000 without granting approval to the services of the organizing staff. The three writ petitioners as teaching staff claimed their entitlement for approval of their services as organizing teaching staff but the same having been denied, the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court and this Court passed an order on 19th February, 2001, inter alia, directing the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioners. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed a reasoned order on 22nd May, 2001 and by his reasoned order rejected the claim of the petitioners for approval of their appointments as organizing teacher. The said order of 22nd May, 2001 was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1101(W) of 2001 and Hon'ble Justice M.H.S. Ansari, as His Lordship then was, by an order dated 26th February, 2002, inter alia, was pleased to direct the Director of School Education, West Bengal to consider the case of the petitioners after calling for respective records. However, by a reasoned order dated 23 September, 2002 the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of West Bengal, rejected the claim of the petitioners. The said order was again challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1190(W) of 2003 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Justice Maharaj Sinha by a judgment and order dated 23 March, 2006. While disposing of the said writ petition being W.P. 1190(W) of 2003 His Lordship set aside the aforesaid order dated 23 September, 2003, passed by the Secretary, Education Department, Government of West Bengal and after recording the entire case of the petitioners directed the 5th respondent, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, to cause an inspection of the records maintained by the school, namely, Fatema Girls' Junior High School including Attendance Registers, students' Registers, Minutes of the meetings of the Managing Committee, respective letters of appointment of the writ petitioners as teaching staff of the school in question and also other contemporaneous documents, if any, for the purpose of arriving at a decision regarding approval of appointments of the petitioners as teaching staff within a time period fixed in the said order. It was further held that once a fresh decision has been taken by the said 5th respondent and once he is satisfied that the petitioners had been working in the said school on the basis of their respective appointments, the 5th respondent was directed to approve the respective appointments of the petitioners as teaching staff. In the concluding part of the judgment His Lordship also held that by virtue of the interim order or orders passed earlier the services of the writ petitioners had been duly protected as the concerned teaching staff of the said school. The relevant portions of the said judgment are set out below:

(3.) WHEN this writ petition was moved on 12th October, 2007, an order was passed by this Court directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the service of the writ petitioners. This order was passed in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the State. This pre -supposes that prima facie, the petitioners were working in the school in question. Thereafter, an order was passed on 8th August, 2008 wherein this Court directed for production of documents and registers before this Court. The Managing Committee of the school was directed to depute an authorized representative to this Court along with all relevant records for the years 1982 -2000. The said records were directed to be produced on 29th August, 2008 at 11 a.m. Subsequent to the said order dated 8th August, 2008 another order was passed on 3 September, 2008 by this Court and it appears that by the said order it was recorded that the school authorities have produced all the documents and registers for the years 1982 -2000 in Court. By the said order the school authorities were directed to give inspection of the documents to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents and also to Mr. Jakir Hossain, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It is stated at the Bar that such inspection had been given. From the order impugned it appears that the District Inspector of Schools caused an inspection on 22nd May, 2006 in respect of the records of the school including -