(1.) In this petition the writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Director of School Education issued under memo No. 629(6)SC/G.I. dated the 30th March, 1993 by which the petitioner's claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in the concerned Junior High School, namely, Pandaveswar Rakhal Chandra Balika Vidyalaya has been turned down. The said school is a four-class junior high school having classes from V to VIII. Some time in Dec. 1981 the Managing Committee of the said School decided to open classes IX and X and also appointed the petitioner as one of the teachers for those classes and she joined in Jan. 1982. At that time she was M.A. (Sanskrit) with honours in Sanskrit at the graduation level. In 1992 the petitioner qualified herself further with the degree of Bachelor of Education of the Biswa Bharati University which is stated to be a recognised qualification for Work Education teacher in junior high and secondary schools. The Managing Committee of the school in 1984 decided to close the new classes IX and X and offered opportunity to the writ petitioner and another teacher Shrimati Minakshi Nayak who were earlier appointed for teaching in classes IX and X, to continue to teach in the junior high schools upto class VIII. The petitioner availed of that opportunity and continued to Act as teacher in the Junior High School. It appears that the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) was giving a grant of Rs. 1,000.00 per month to the said school towards expenses for the teachers initially appointed by the Managing Committee of the School for teaching in classes IX and X.
(2.) It is case of the writ petitioner that due to heavy pressure of in- flow of students, the schools was compelled to open two sections for classes V and VI with effect from 1981 and in pursuance of a resolution of the Managing Committee dated the 24th April, 1984 the Headmistress of the school wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Burdwan on 4th May, 1984 requesting him to sanction two additional posts of teachers vide annexure at page 42 of the writ petition. As nothing was done by the authorities concerned in response to the said letter of the Headmistress of the school regarding sanction of additional posts, the petitioner moved a writ petition in this Court being C.O. No. 1872(W) of 1984 which was disposed of by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. (as his Lordship then was) by judgment dated the 14th March, 1985. In that judgment the learned Judge inter alia directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the case of the petitioner. It was also observed in the said judgment that if the petitioner had been in service on the date on which the application was forwarded to the D.I. of Schools she should be treated as in service. j The matter was then considered and disposed of by the District Inspector of School by his order conveyed under memo No. 2914 dated the 18th July, 1985, Annexure-D to the writ petition in which the District Inspector held inter alia that the petitioner could not be considered as teacher of the said school on the ground that there was no necessity of opening of classes IX and X beyond 10.3.1979 by the school authority without obtaining prior permission from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and there was no necessity/cause for the opening of additional section for classes V and VI without making any application or taking any approval for such units from the proper authority. It may be noted here that it appears from the order of the learned Judge dated 14.3.1995 passed in the said C.O. No. 18721(W) of 1984 that the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before the learned Judge at the time of hearing that the petitioner was willing to serve the school without any remuneration and school authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioner. In that background the D.I. of Schools (SE), Burdwan in his said order dated the 18th July, 1985 also observed that since the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the petitioner was willing to serve the school without any remuneration the school authority might consider the same without any commitment and/or obligation from the side of the respondent whatsoever.
(3.) It appear that thereafter the Managing Committee of the school took a resolution on 12.9.1986 to the effect that for want of adequate number of teachers in the school difficulties were being faced in running the classes properly and accordingly Mamta Ghosh (writ petitioner) and another teacher Minakshi Nayak were allowed to take classes. It was also recorded in the said resolution (vide Annexure-E) that those two teachers were agreeable to work without remuneration and that they would not be entitled to raise any claim as teacher in future. It was further recorded in the said resolution that if the ECL gave any grant, in that event the said teachers would get remuneration otherwise the school authority would not be responsible for the same. It was also categorically recorded in that resolution that the two teachers including the writ petitioner were allowed to work without remuneration. It is the petitioner's case that she was accordingly taking classes in classes V to VIII in different subjects as would be revealed for the class routine for the year 1987-88 (vide Annexure-G).