Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushil Chandra Kumar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 May, 2023
26
08.05.2023
Ct. No. 15
adeb
W.P.A. 7627 of 2012
Sushil Chandra Kumar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Mr. S.M. Ali
...for the petitioners
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya
...for the WBBSE
The writ petition is presented, inter alia, praying
for approval of appointment of the petitioners claiming to
be organizing teaching and non-teaching staff of Bhabani
Bala Adivasi Vidyapith, District-Purulia (hereinafter
referred to as the "said school") upon setting aside memo
dated 29th February, 2012 issued by the Principal
Secretary, School Education Department, Government of
West Bengal whereby prayer of the said school for grant
of financial assistance to the school as well as to the
organizing teaching and non-teaching staff upon granting
approval has been spurned.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that in the report of the Sub Inspector of Schools (SE),
Purulia which is at page 111 of the writ petition names of
the petitioners have been incorporated as existing
teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school which
confers right upon the petitioners to get financial benefits
from the State exchequer on grant of approval.
2
State-respondents are not represented today.
However, West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education is represented by Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya,
learned advocate who has opposed the prayer of the
petitioners on the score that recognition was granted to
the said school as 4 class junior high with effect from 1st
May, 2007 without financial assistance. According to
Board, since the said school has been granted
recognition as newly set up teaching and non-teaching
staff working in the school are required to be appointed
on the recommendation of the School Service
Commission or by following the extant Recruitment
Rules.
Having heard the learned advocates representing
the petitioners and the Board and on perusal of materials
available on record it appears that the contents of the
impugned memo dated 29th February, 2012 issued by the
Principal Secretary, School Education Department,
Government of West Bengal is reiterated by the Board
and accordingly submission has been made by the
learned advocate representing the Board today.
On hearing the learned advocates and having seen
the impugned memo dated 29th February, 2012 it
appears that there are two aspects one is recognition
needs to be granted with financial assistance another is
approval of appointment in favour of the organizing
teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school and
extension of financial benefits thereof.
On perusal of the writ petition and the prayers
couched therein it appears that the issue relating to
extension of financial assistance in favour of the school
by the State government has not been pleaded in the writ
petition and no prayer has been made to that extant.
Therefore, it will not be proper to appraise the question of
extension of financial assistance in favour of the said
school by the State government.
However, petitioners are claiming approval of
appointment being organizing teaching and non-teaching
staff. Since the school in question has been recognized as
newly set up with effect from 1st May, 2007 by the Board
on the recommendation of the Education Department,
Government of West Bengal, payer of the petitioners for
approval of appointment to get financial benefits
cannot be considered since in terms of relevant
provisions relating to newly set up school the prevalent
procedure is to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff
on the recommendation of the School Service
Commission or in accordance with the extant
Recruitment Rules.
In addition thereto the issue relating to grant of
approval to the organizing teaching and non-teaching
staff is no more res integra in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 6th July, 2018 passed
on 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 is quoted below:-
"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."
In view of aforesaid facts involved in this writ
petition and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
dated 6th July, 2018 the relief as sought for by the
petitioners is refused and accordingly the writ petition
stands dismissed.
Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Board
is taken on record.
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.)
