CHANDAN MAITI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Subrata Mukherjee (4) ......for the State By his letter dated 1st February, 2005 and 6th June, 2006 the Secretary, Bimala Snehalata (Tapashili) Bidyaniketan appointed the writ petitioners as Assistant Teachers. They would get the salary and allowances as per Rules on the approval of the service by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.). This approval was never made.

(2.) Considering the ratio in the case of Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC, page 1, I do not think this kind of appointment is illegal but can be "irregular" on the principles of that judgment. Those appointments did not say that the writ petitioners were temporary or ad hoc Assistant Teachers but stated that they were regular staff of the school and would be on probation for three years subject to approval of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education/D.S.E, West Bengal. That is why I say that the appointments were irregular.

(3.) Now the grievances of the writ petitioners are that they have been working from 2006 and should be regularized accordingly. The writ petitioners are working as permanent staff of the school and there are vacancies.