Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Pabitra Kumar Nayek vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 April, 2023
36. 10.04.2023
bd. Ct.15 W.P.A. 14601 of 2018
Sri Pabitra Kumar Nayek
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bharat Chandra Simai
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Pinaki Dhole
Mr. Avishek Prasad
... for the State
In the writ petition challenge has been
thrown to the decision of the District Inspector of
Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur, being the
respondent no. 3 whereby the claim of the petitioner
for grant of approval as organising assistant teacher
has been spurned.
The learned advocate for the petitioner
submits that the Headmaster of Uttar Daudpur,
Vidyapith, District- Purba Medinipur (hereinafter
referred to as the "said school") by issuing certificate
dated 23rd July, 2004 stated that the petitioner
worked in the school as assistant teacher for the
period from 16th August, 1997 to 30th August, 1999.
Placing reliance on this certificate dated 23rd July,
2004 petitioner has claimed grant of approval of
appointment being an organising teacher.
The prayer of the petitioner has been opposed
by the learned advocate representing the State
respondents and has defended the decision of the
respondent no. 3 as contained in memo dated 7th
June, 2017 on the score that petitioner left the
school on 23rd July, 2003 and the school was
recognised in the year 2010. Therefore at the time of
recognition of the school petitioner was not serving
as an organising assistant teacher of the said
school.
Having considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties and on perusal of
the relevant records including decision of the
respondent no. 3 as contained in memo dated 7th
June, 2017 it appears that the petitioner worked in
the said school till 22nd July, 2003 and thereafter
left the school. The school was recognised in the
year 2010; therefore it transpires that at the time of
recognition of the school petitioner was not working
as an organising assistant teacher.
In addition thereto reliance is also placed on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated
6th July, 2018 passed in an intra-Court appeal
being MAT 1626 of 2017 (The District Inspector
of Schools (SE), Burdwan & Ors.-vs- Abdul Barik
Shaikh & Ors), Paragraph 19 of the said judgment
runs infra:
"19. Applying the law
laid down here, we hold
that Manindra Nath
Sinha (supra) having
been affirmed by the
Supreme Court, all
Benches of this Court in
cases involving similar
fact situation are bound
to follow the same as a
binding precedent and
any decision of a learned
Judge or Judges, which
runs counter to the dicta
in Manindra Nath Sinha
(supra), Smritikana Maity
(supra), Gita Banik and
Gopal Singh (supra), is
not good law."
The Hon'ble Division Bench in Abdul Barik
Shaikh (supra) unequivocally decided that the
organising teacher does not have right to claim
approval of appointment on grant of recognition of
the school in consideration of the judgment
delivered by this Court prior to decision has been
taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Abdul Barik
Shaikh (supra).
Another fact does not escape notice of this
Court that the petitioner was appointed as an
approved assistant teacher of a primary school with
effect from 15th December, 2012 and till date he is
working as an approved assistant teacher of
primary school. It is recorded in the order of the
respondent no. 3 dated 7th June, 2017.
In above conspectus this Court finds no
discrepancy in the decision contained in memo
dated 7th June, 2017 and accordingly the writ
petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if
applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
