HEADMASTER AND SECRETARY OF SHREE BALKRISHNA VITHALNATH VIDYALAYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2020-8-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 18,2020

Headmaster And Secretary Of Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Managing Committee of Shree Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya and its Headmaster. The school is categorized as a "Dearness Allowance (D.A.) getting school", although it has been contended that the State directly gives D.A. to some of the teachers. The writ petition has been filed for placement of a Departmental Nominee and for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school. It is the case of the petitioners that after completion of election, a Departmental Nominee had been placed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.), Kolkata on 15th October, 2015 and the Managing Committee had been reconstituted thereafter on 4th November, 2015. The tenure of the present Managing Committee was to expire therefore on 3rd November, 2018, three years being the tenure of a Managing Committee of a school under the relevant Rules. The election programme was made on 1st April, 2018 and a notice for election of teaching representatives was done on 19th April, 2018, followed by election of teachers and non-teachers' representatives on 28th April, 2018. The election of the guardians' representatives was held on 6th May, 2018.
(2.) Mr. Pratik Dhar, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after completion of all the stages as stated above, the only requirement left was placement of a Departmental Nominee by the District Inspector (D.I.), Kolkata. The Managing committee by its letter dated 8th May, 2018 had accordingly requested for reconstitution of the Managing Committee by placing a Departmental Nominee. The petitioners sent a reminder on 7th August, 2018 followed by an intimation to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (the Board) on 29th August, 2018. Counsel submits that the D.I. sought for a clarification by a communication dated 18th September, 2018 listing three points for clarification, which were- "S/A is requested to clarify the following points in the matter of MC election: 1. Election officer conduct election within the validity of MC/Administrator 2. Any court case pending before Hon'ble Court. 3. Administrator, WBBSE order dated : 25.06.2015 regd. Appointment." (Phrases reproduced from the impugned communication) The petitioners are aggrieved by this communication for the following reasons; a) the election was done within the period of validity of the Managing Committee b) a "No Litigation Certificate" had been given by the petitioners to the D.I. on 8th May, 2018 c) there is no order of the Board dated 25th June, 2015, contrary to what has been stated in the impugned communication. These points were duly clarified by the petitioners in their letter to the D.I dated 19th September, 2018.
(3.) Counsel contends that the D.I. despite receiving the reply of the petitioners and being fully aware that the term of the Managing Committee was to expire on 3rd November, 2018, chose not to respond to the petitioners' letter. The petitioners were hence constrained to file the present writ petition by reason of the inaction on the part of the respondents in placing a Departmental Nominee for the purpose of reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.