Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Debabratra Kumar And Another vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 16 February, 2012
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
16. 2.2012 W. P. 14947 (W) of 2011 In re : Debabratra Kumar and another
-vs-
State of West Bengal and others Mr. Apurba Krishna Das, Mr. Subhendu Bikash Mukherjee ....For petitioners Mr. Jaladhi Das ........For the State No one has appeared to oppose the writ application on behalf of the Village Education Committee.
In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, an order dated 28th July, 2011, passed by the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Purulia, pursuant to an order dated 23rd February ,2011, passed by His Lordship, the Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon, in W. P. 9296 (W) of 2009 (Debabrata Kumar and another Vs. State of West Bengal and others ).
Pursuant to applications invited sometime in the year 2005, for appointment of two Additional para-teachers for Majhidih Primary School, hereinafter referred to as the said School, the petitioners applied, and were interviewed by the Village Education Committee which administers the school. Being successful, the petitioners were selected and were empanelled as the first and second candidates in order of merit.
By two engagement letters both dated 28th December, 2005, the petitioners were appointed Additional Para-teachers of the school purely on temporary and contractual basis at a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of one year from the date of joining.
The petitioners were duly engaged and their engagement was extended from year to year. In the year 2008, election to the Village Education Committee was held after which a new Village Education Committee was formed. The new Village Education Committee did not renew the engagement of the petitioners after 3rd January, 2009, without assigning any reason whatsoever.
The petitioners made several representations. The teacher-in-charge of the school supported the case of the petitioners and made a representation to the concerned authorities for renewal of their engagement. Nothing was, however, done.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition No. 9296 (W) of 2009 which was disposed of by an order dated 23rd February, 2011, passed by His Lordship, the Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon.
His Lordship directed the District Project Officer to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioners within the time stipulated in the said order.
By the impugned order the District Project Officer held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner since their engagement was purely on contract basis for one year, subject to renewal from time to time. It was the Village Education Committee which was the competent authority for such renewal. The District Project Officer also deprecated the conduct of the petitioners in retaining the Attendance Register in their custody and signing the Attendance Register during the period after expiry of their contract.
It is true that the appointment of the petitioners was temporary. However, the appointment was renewed from year to year. This indicates that there was requirement for Additional Para-teachers in the school. The para-teachers are engaged from out of funds provided by the Government. The Village Education Committee may be entrusted with the management of the school. It is, however, not open to the Village Education Committee to engage and disengage para- teachers at their own whims and fancies.
Mr. Das has referred to two Government Orders, - a Government Order No. 321/S.E. (Pry ) dated 22nd 55/Ped/PBSS June,2009, and Memo No. 273 SE (P)/PBRPSUS/ADMN/9/04-05 dated 23rd April, 2010. The order dated 22nd June, 2009, is extracted hereinbelow :
" In continuation of order No.134- SE(Pry) dated 26.2.2009 of this department, this is to state that the contract of para teacher, who served satisfactorily, will be renewed after a day's break in general. If any exception is sought by any SLMC/M.C, as the case may be, then the matter shall be referred to the DPO, SSM of the concerned district, at least one month ahead of expiry of the existing contract. On receipt of such opinion, DPO, SSM shall get the matter enquired and shall place a report with his valued opinion before the District Magistrate and District Project Director, SSM for decision. This decision shall be communicated to the concerned SLMC/MC for execution.
It is further to state that in such Primary schools where SLMC has not been formed, the proposal for renewal of para teacher, if any, shall be referred by the Head Teacher/Teacher-in-Charge of such Primary School to the concerned S.I. of Schools (Circle Project Co-ordinator- CPC), S.I. of Schools (CPC) by written order shall authorize the concerned Head Teacher/Teacher-in-Charge to renew the contract of existing para teacher after a day's break. However, if any exception is sought, the procedure of 1st para above will be followed.
This order shall take immediate effect."
By the order dated 23rd April, 2010, the honorarium of para-teachers was enhanced and the Government directed that all existing para-teachers would be engaged in the manner to be notified in due course , for a period of one year, subject to renewal till they attained the age of sixty years of age or till the Sarba Siksha Project was wound up, whichever was earlier. It was further directed that no new para-teachers or other contractual employees would be engaged by any authority except with prior written approval of the Education Department. The order also provided that on attaining the age of sixty years or on winding up of the project, the para-teachers and other contractual employees would be paid an ex gratia retirement honorarium of Rs.1,00,000/- on lump sum basis. The order was to come into force with effect from 1st June, 2010. The order dated 23rd April, 2010, which applies to existing para-teachers, is not applicable to the petitioner, who is no longer a para-teacher. The order dated 22nd June, 2009, was also issued after the contract of the petitioner expired.
However, as observed above, the contract was renewed from year to year. There could be no justification in not further renewing the contract without assigning any reason whatsoever. It is not open to the Village Education Committee to render the object of Sarba Siksha Project infructuous by engaging and disengaging para-teachers on their own whims.
In terms of the Government Order dated 22nd June, 2009, the contract of a para-teacher is ordinarily to be renewed after a day's break. However, if any exception is sought by any Committee, the case would have to be referred to the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, of the concerned District. The District Project Officer would have to get the matter enquired and place a report with his valued opinion before the District Magistrate and the District Project Director, Sarba Siksha Mission, for decision and the decision of the District Magistrate and the District Project Director would have to be communicated to the concerned Managing Committee for execution. This court is of the view that the District Project Officer should conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether there was any valid reason for discontinuance of the engagement of the petitioner. Be it noted that the District Project Officer has in the impugned order himself observed that the Village Education Committee had not assigned any reason for not renewing the contract of the petitioner. After enquiry the District Project Officer may place his valued opinion before the District Magistrate and District Project Director for his decision. If a decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be re-engaged as per the directions of the District Magistrate and District Project Director, Sarba Siksha Mission.
The writ application is disposed of with the above direction. The District Project Officer concerned shall complete the enquiry within 45 working days and place his report with his opinion before the District Magistrate within fifteen days thereafter. The concerned District Magistrate and the District Project Director, Sarba Siksha Mission, shall take a decision within thirty days thereafter. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within 14 days from the date thereof. If a decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be re- engaged preferably within one month from the date of the decision.
The writ application is disposed of with the above directions. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with the requisite formalities.
( Indira Banerjee J. )