BHUDEV BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised as teacher since he was not an organising teacher. In this the learned Single Judge has given the finding of fact that the said teacher was employed on 2nd April, 1984 but the inspection by the District Level Inspection Team (hereinafter referred to as DLIT) had taken place earlier to that and his name was not to be found in the inspection report as the teacher was not present at the time of DLIT inspection. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the salary, if, any, earned by the original writ petitioner should be refunded and for that purpose recovery should be made since the original appointment of the writ petitioner itself was bad and unjustified in law.

(2.) The following facts will highlight the controversy involved in the matter:-

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very earnestly urges before us that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner should not get the advantage of an organising teacher is factually not cqrrect. According to the learned Counsel there is no evidence-on-record that there was any DLIT inspection for the school or any inspection team ever took the inspection of the school. Learned Counsel is at pains to point out that there was no authentic document in the shape of an inspection report produced before the Court and in fact the documents which were produced is report were disbelieved by the learned Single Judge as not being authentic copy of the report. The learned Counsel submitted that there was n.o inspection at any point of time, therefore, it could not be held that the petitioner was employed only after the inspection report and that the petitioner was not found to be the organising teacher in the inspection of the DLIT. Learned Counsel, attacks the order of the Director of School Education on the ground that the Director did not have before him any records as such his finding that the petitioner was employed after the inspection and could not be the organising teacher could not be said to be a correct finding. We were taken through the records extensively as also the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment. The learned Counsel argues that once a finding regarding the DLIT goes then automatically the petitioner would get the status of an organising teacher and would be entitled to the approval which was.rightly granted by the District Inspector of Schools.