STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. HARI PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the rule made absolute by Majumdar, J. in C. O. No. 127(W) of 1984 on 10/6/84. The facts leading to the present appeal may be summarised as follows : -

(2.) In urban Government recognised primary Schools, the teachers are appointed by the Managing Committee subject to approval by the appropriate authority in the Education Department, i.e. the Director of Primary Education, Government of West Bengal, to whom their names are recommended by the District Inspector of Schools on behalf of and as the ex-oficio Secretary of the Urban Advisry Committee. The version of the respondents-petitioners is that they were appointed as teachers of a number of Primary Schools situated within the Malda town area by the Managing Committees of those Schools from 1974 and onwards. Their names were duly recommended to the Director of Primary Education for approval of their appointments by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary) Malda., the ex-officio Secretary of the local Urban Advisory Committee. The said Authority having failed to accord his approval, the respondents Nos. I to 6 and 8 to 10 moved a writ petition before this Court in C. R. 384(W) of 1983, which was ultimately disposed of by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. on 1-3/7/83 with a direction on the Director of Primary Education to consider the recommendation for approval within two months. Two similar writ applications on similar grounds were also moved in C. O. No. 3694(W) of 1983 and C. ). 9695(W) of 1983 by respondents nos. 11 to 15 and 16 21 respectively, in which "a similar direction was passed by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. on 16/7/83. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Malda issued Memos nos. 1206(17) and 1207(17) both dated 28/11/83, whereby he accorded approval to the. appointments of the respondents as teachers after obtaining opinion of the local Government Pleader. Bank Accounts were also opened in favour of the respondents, to enable them to draw their salary. The District Inspector of Schools also directed the Sub-Inspector of Schools (Appellant respondent no. 4) to draw up their pay bills, but subsequently be directed the Sub-Inspector by a letter not to draw up their pay' bills. Apprehending, therefore, that the approval of their appointments as per the aforementioned Memos nos. 11206(17) and 1207(17) dated 28/11/83 was withdrawn or cancelled, the respondents moved the present writ petition in C. O. 127 (W) of 1984, against the State of West Bengal, the Education Department, the Director of Primary Education and the District Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Schools, Malda {appellants-respondents nos. 1 to 4) for a direction upon them to pay their salary to the present respondents and not to revoke or cancel the aforementioned Memo nos. 1206(17) and 1207(17) both dated 28/11/83 and interim reliefs.

(3.) The case of the appellants- respondent, as it appears from their affidavit- in- opposition is that the respondent-petitioners were never legally appointed teachers of the Schools concerned. The Memos No. 1206(17) and 1207(17) dated 28/11/83 were extracted from D. Debnath, the then District Inspector of Schools (Primary by putting him under gherao. Dr. Debnath himself submitted a confidential report stating this to the Director of School Education with copies to the District Magistrate, Malda and Director of Public Instruction by his Memo no. c/6 dated 29/1183. The District Magistrate, Malda also intimated the Director of School Education about this incident by his office note dated 5/12/83 (P. 116). The department thereafter started a Departmental Enquiry against Dr. Debnath, for illegally granting approval to the appointments of the respondents and placed him under suspension. The Memo No. 1206(17) and 1207(17) dated 28/11/83 could not therefore ensure to the benefit of the respondents and the opinion of the Government Pleader, Malda, or the opening of the Bank Accounts in their favour could not improve matters in any way. Besides, these memos were subsequently set aside by the Director of School Education. The respondents, so it is urged, are not entitled to the relief prayed for.