GOPAL CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated the 26th July, 1988 passed by the learned trial Judge disposing of the writ petition in C R. No. 10883 (W) of 1987. The appellant Gopal Chandra Panda was a teacher of Birulia Pitambar High School and after attaining the normal age of superannuation, he applied for extension of his service, it appears that he obtained the first extension of his services for one year. Thereafter, he made an application for extension for the second term by another year and initially the Managing Committee recommended such extension for the second time for one year. But it is the case of the Managing Committee that while the recommendation of the Managing Committee for second extension was pending for consideration before the District Inspector of Schools, the health of the teacher deteriorated considerably and the said teacher became seriously ill and he himself made an application before* the Managing Committee for grant of medical leave on the ground that he was unable to discharge the duits and functions as a teacher and it was not possible for him to indicate as to how long he would remain on medical leave. The Managing Committee thereafter took a resolution that in view of the change in the condition of health of the said teacher, the original resolution recommending him for getting extension for a full one year for the second term should stand modified and extension for second time should be given up to the 30th June, 1987. The District inspector of Schools, however, did not accord approval either on the basis of original resolution of the Managing Committee or on the basis of revised resolution for giving the second extension for a period up to the 30th June, 1987. The District Inspector of Schools, by his Memo dated the 10th November, 1987, accorded approval of extension up to the 9th June, 1987 and intimated the Managing Committee that the service of the teacher should stand terminated with effect from 10th June, 1987. The concerned teacher who is the appellant in this appeal after sometime obtained a Medical Certificate to the effect that he had recovered from the illness and it appears that on the basis of such representation that he had recovered from illeness, the District inspector of Schools purported to recall his earlier order and purported to accord approval for extension of the services of the said teacher for the second term for full one year, namely, up to the last day, of February, 1988. It is the case of thee Managing Committee that the said teacher is suffering from cancer of prostrate gland and he is completely unable to discharge his functions as a teacher and he had to be literally carried on to the school by others. It is also the case of the Managing Committee that the said teacher was not granted medical leave for the entire period of absence and his unauthorised absence has resulted in the break in his service and unless the concerned teacher had continued in service without any break the teacher concerned was not entitled to get second extension for full one year. The Managing Committee, therefore, did not allow him to resume his duties and functions as teacher on the basis of revised order of the District Inspector of Schools. It was at this stage that the appellant moved the writ petition before this court inter alia asking for appropriate writ or order for enforcing the revised order of the District Inspector of Schools by which the District Inspector purported to accord approval to the said Teacher for extension of service for the second term for full one year. The learned trial! Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition after a contested hearing and it was, inter alia, held by the learned trial Judge that the District Inspector of Schools not having agreed to accord extension on the basis of the recommendation of the Managing Committee intially made or on the basis of subsequent resolution should have referred the matter under Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Management of the Aided Schools to the Director of Secondary Education. But the District Inspector of Schools had no authority to pass the order of extension only up to June 9, He had also no authority to pass the subsequent order according approval for the second term for one year on Consideration of a subsequent medical report. In that view of the matter, the writ petition made by the appellant was dismissed by the learned trial Judge and the instant appeal has been preferred against the said order.

(2.) After hearing the respective submissions of the parties and having considered the facts, it appears to us that the District Inspector of Schools, under the Rules of Management of the Aided Schools, could' accord approval on the basis for extension to be given to a teacher. But the District Inspector of Schools had no power to disapprove such recommendation and pass an order for extension for any other period. If, however, he was not within to accord approval as per the resolution of the Managing committee, then, his reasons for not according approval were to be for warded to the Director of Secondary Education for final decision and the Director Secondary Education is the appropriate authority who can take a decision either in favour or against the teacher. In the instant case, it appears that the District Inspector of Schools did not consider the case of recommendation of the Managing Committee initially made for extension of the second term for one year and while such recommendation of the Managing Committee was pending consideration by the District Inspector, the Managing Committee revised its recommendation and requested the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval for extension up to the 30th June, 1987. On such revised recommendation the District Inspector of Schools could accord approval as contained in the revised resolution but unfortunately he did not accept such recommendation but purported to accord approval only up to 9th June, 1987 and specifically directed that, the service of the teacher would stand terminated with effort from 10th June, 1987. Such order of the District Inspector of Schools appears to be without jurisdiction. If he was not willing to approve the resolution of the Managing Committee for granting extension the matter ought to have been referred to the Director of Secondary Education with his reasons for disapproval. There was also no occasion for him to recall his earlier order and pass the subsequent order purporting to grant extension for the second time for full one year on the basis of a subsequent medicl report. As the writ petitioner moved the writ petition for implementing the second order which was without jurisdiction whatsoever, in our view, the learned trial Judge has rightly- rejected the writ petition inter alia on the view that the said order of the District Inspector could not be given effect to.

(3.) It, however, appears to us that the maximum period which can be granted for second extension has lapsed in the meantime. But still then the question of consideration for second extension may be germane even today for the purpose of deciding as to whether or not the concerned teacher was eligible to get second extension and if so what extent In our view, such consideration is required to be made for two reasons, namely, for enabling the teacher to get the effect of approval for the second time if extension is granted by the Director of Secondary Education pursuant to the recommendation of the Managing Committee and secondly to enable him to ask for further extension in the event such extension for the second time is given to him and he is not otherwise disqualified for further extension In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that the writ petition has become in fructuous because of the lapse of time.