PIYAS BISWAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is at the instance of a teacher who finds himself in deep waters, for, what I perceive is a combination of lack of enterprise and promptitude on his part and obstinacy on the part of his adversary. Despite being recommended by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission (Southern Region) (hereafter the Regional Commission) for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bengali (H/PG) (hereafter the said post) in Shyam Bazar A.V. School (hereafter the school), the petitioner has been refused joining by the authorities of the school, that is, the respondents 7 and 8 on the ground that he did not report for joining within the time limit stipulated in the offer of appointment. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this writ petition dated January 21, 2014 has been presented seeking an order on the respondents 7 and 8 to allow the petitioner join the said post.

(2.) Facts leading to presentation of the writ petition are these. The petitioner is an approved teacher, who has been serving Sasati Nahala Abinash High School, P.O. Uluberia, District Howrah since September 1, 2008. Facing difficulty in commuting between Sonarpur (place of residence) and Uluberia (the workplace), the petitioner offered his candidature for fresh appointment by responding to an advertisement issued in connection with 12th Regional Level Selection Test, 2011 (hereafter the RLST). On the basis of its result, the Regional Commission recommended the petitioner for appointment in the school vide memo dated October 28, 2013. While mentioning that the recommendation would remain valid for 90 (ninety) days from date of its dispatch through post, such memo required the authorities of the school to issue letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner within 7 (seven) days from date of its receipt allowing him to join within the stipulated period, in terms of Rule 17(4) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 (hereafter the 2007 Rules). The Headmaster of the school, respondent 8, issued letter of appointment dated November 9, 2013 to the petitioner with a request to join within 7 (seven) days of receipt thereof. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he received the letter of appointment on November 12, 2013. By a letter dated November 21, 2013, the petitioner prayed for extension of joining time by a month, instead of 7 (seven) days. The ground cited for extension was that the petitioner had been entrusted with various types of responsibilities related to Test examination of the students at his present workplace and that it would be difficult for him to ignore such responsibilities. Reference was made by the petitioner to the fact that the recommendation was valid for 90 (ninety) days. The Headmaster allegedly did not respond. It is further alleged that when the petitioner had been to the school on December 17, 2013, he was disallowed joining. A representation dated December 31, 2013 followed, addressed to the Chairman of the Regional Commission. The petitioner sought to apprise him of the rude behaviour of the Headmaster on first interaction and while expressing apprehension as to what was in store for the future if he were to serve the school as a teacher, made a request to appoint him in any other suitable vacancy. Such representation, however, yielded no result.

(3.) Counsel for the school argued that the period of joining as mentioned in the appointment letter is firm and inflexible and since the petitioner did neither join within 7 (seven) days of its receipt nor prayed for extension of joining time within November 19, 2013, the Headmaster was under no obligation to allow the petitioner to join after expiry of the stipulated period.