Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sikha Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 November, 2011
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
21.11.2011. W. P. No. 2550 (W) of 2009
Sikha Dhar
versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya,
Mr. Sakti Sadhan Samanta ... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguli,
Mr. T. K. Chatterjee
... For the State-Respondent Nos. 1 To 4.
Mr. Manoranjan Jana ... For the Respondent No.5.
The petitioner was an organiser teacher of Rohini Balika Vidyalaya in the district of Paschim Medinipur. After the said school was recognised as a junior high school, the service of the petitioner was regularised in the said school as Teacher-in- Charge with effect from 2nd May, 1989. At the time of regularising her service, the petitioner's educational qualification was B.A., B.Ed. The said service of the petitioner was approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore and the said approval was communicated to the school authority by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore by his letter dated 3rd November, 1989.
Subsequently, the petitioner enhanced her educational qualification by acquiring Master Degree in Bengali. The higher scale of pay for her Master Degree qualification was granted to the petitioner by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore with effect from 2nd May, 1989.
The said school was upgraded as a High School with effect from 1st May, 2000. Permission was granted to the said school to open Class-IX from 1st May, 2000 and Class-X from 1st May, 2001 provisionally for three years subject to fulfilment as mentioned in the recognition letter issued by the Secretary, 2 West Bengal Board of Secondary Education on 16th June, 2000.
Now the petitioner claims that she should be absorbed as Headmistress in the said school as she has been acting as a Teacher-in-Charge in the said school right from the regularisation of her service as Teacher-in-Charge of the Junior High School.
Since the petitioner's claim for her appointment as Headmistress in the High School was rejected by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Paschim Medinipur, the petitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Paschim Medinipur dated 29th December, 2008 by which petitioner's such claim was rejected by the said authority.
Let me now consider as to how far the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Paschim Medinipur was justified in rejecting petitioner's such claim in the facts of the instant case.
The School Service Commission Act has come into effect in 2007. After introduction of the said Act, even the post of Headmaster and/or Headmistress in the Government aided high or higher secondary school cannot be filled up save and except by following the modalities as prescribed under the said Act.
Admittedly the petitioner has not been selected for being appointed as Headmistress in the said school by following the modalities as prescribed under the School Service Commission Act, 2007.
3The petitioner claims that she should be appointed as a Headmistress in the said school by following the extant Rules which were prevalent prior to the School Service Commission Act came into operation as the school was upgraded in 2000 and she was acting as a Teacher-in-Charge in the said school since then.
Let me now consider as to how far petitioner's such contention can be accepted in the instant case.
The educational qualification for appointment in the post of Headmaster and/or Headmistress in a secondary school which was prescribed prior to introduction of 2007 Act was that the candidate must possess Master Degree, B.Ed. training with ten years teaching experience in high and/or higher secondary school.
Though the petitioner's educational qualification can satisfy the requirement for her being appointed as a Headmistress in the said high school, but her teaching experience is lacking. The petitioner acquired ten years teaching experience in high school only in May 2010. Thus, her right to be considered for appointment as Headmistress in the said high school matured in May 2010. But before her right to be considered for appointment as Headmistress in the said high school matured in May 2010, the School Service Commission Act, 2007 came into operation by superseding all earlier Circulars, Notifications and/or Rules regarding appointment as Headmaster and/or Headmistress in high and/or higher secondary schools.
Thus, this Court holds that after introduction of the School Service Commission Act, 2007, the service of the petitioner cannot be regularised as Headmistress in the said school. The petitioner's prayer, thus, cannot be allowed.
4It is, however, made clear that since the petitioner has been acting as Headmistress both in the junior high school and in the high school continuously since the time of its upgradation, her service as an Assistant Teacher in the said school should not be disturbed until a regular Headmaster and/or Headmistress is appointed in the said school by following the procedure as prescribed under the School Service Commission Act, 2007.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
(JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.) dc.