Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kumaresh Chandra Mondal & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 September, 2013
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1 05.09.2013
W.P. 19252(W) of 2001 ss Kumaresh Chandra Mondal & anr.
Vs. State of West Bengal & ors.
,, Mr. Ekramul Bari .... For the petitioner Mr. Anami Sikdar .... For the State The writ petitioners are claiming that they are organiser teachers of the concerned Madrasah. The writ petitioners made application for granting approval of their appointment as organiser teachers. Although recognition of the school was granted but the petitioners were not approved as assistant teachers. The writ petitioners came up before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.11605(W) of 2001 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11th October, 2001. From the order it appears that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24-Parganas was directed to proceed with the matter in respect of approval of appointment of the petitioners as organising staff taking into consideration of the Circular in that respect within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of that order. Mr. Bari, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that even in spite of the order passed by 2 this Hon'ble Court the concerned District Inspector of Schools did not grant approval. The concerned District Inspector of Schools by an impugned order dated 6th December, 2001 rejected the prayer of the writ petitioners on the plea that the writ petitioners were working in the school but they were not the organising staff.
Mr. Bari submits that the matter has already been finalised by the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 11th October, 2001. The concerned District Inspector of Schools has no other alternative but to give approval on the basis of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The concerned District Inspector of Schools, in violation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, has passed the order and the writ petitioners' approval was not granted illegally and unfairly.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 17th July, 2012 the concerned District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas has submitted a report before this Hon'ble Court and in that report the appointment and continuation of the petitioners' service is accepted. However, it was recorded that they were working as unapproved staff in the school.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. From the order passed by this Court on 11th October, 2001 it 3 appears that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24- Parganas was directed to grant approval of appointment of the petitioners as organising staff. The mater has already been finalised by that order. There is no scope for passing a different order refusing the claim of the writ petitioners by the concerned District Inspector of Schools.
In my view, the order passed by the concerned District Inspector of Schools on 6th December, 2001 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order is set aside.
The concerned District Inspector of Schools is directed to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners with effect from 5th September, 2013. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)