Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was an Assistant Headmistress of the institution. Her appointment was approved but which was subsequently withdrawn showing a ground that the petitioner had no requisite qualification at the time of giving approval. According to the D.I. of School, the petitioner was having MA. in Bengali with Diploma in Physical Education. Such Diploma in Physical Education is not requisite qualification for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Headmistress or for approval of such appointment. Naturally, she became aggrieved and invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. None appeared on behalf of the State authorities. But the School authority appeared and vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner in getting regularisation the service as Assistant Headmistress since she bad no requisite qualification at the time of appointment of approval. It is noted hereunder that the appointment was originally approved in the year 1993 and the petitioner was teaching in the School as Assistant Headmistress till such time and the order is withdrawn by office memo no. 853/G dated 20 -7 -2000. Petitioner has a demand of Justice.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before this court that she is taking classes in respect of Physical Education having the appropriate qualification in this respect. By citing a judgment reported in : 1999(2) SCC 189 (Dr. Earn Sevak Singh vs. Dr. U.P. Singh & Ors.) he said that Supreme Court had given a guideline in respect of recruitment process, determination of eligibility and qualification/ experience specifically holding that if Master's Degree in education is one of the subjects taught in the college, M.Ed., qualification satisfied the criterion of eligibility of teaching subject. It is also submitted that the qualifications are as per the then circular in the year 1982 and 1984 as well as in the recent ROPA i.e., 1998. Therefore, the educational qualifications can govern the field of having appointment or approval of service in such post of assistant teachers. The qualifications are Trained Graduate with Honours degree or with Master's degree" subject to amendment of class, minimum marks and experience applicable at the relevant time. Such eligibility criteria is available everywhere either in circular of the year 1982, 1984 as well as in the ROPA 1998. There is no change of above quoted portion at any point of time inspite of the above amendments. Since the petitioner is a trained candidate and continuing with the teaching of such subject in the institution she cannot be said to be a candidate not having requisite qualification for the purpose of appointment or approval of appointment as Assistant Head mistress in the institution. I also find the "training" has been clarified in the office memorandum of the Directorate of School Education Grant -in -Aid Sec. issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 15 -7 -1969. Therefore, if 1 take the totality of the educational qualifications, such trained candidate might have been construed as trained in the courses being B.T., E.Ed., P.G.B.T., P.G.P.T. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner diploma in physical education training is the highest degree. Therefore, the same is to be construed as a degree equivalent to 'P.G.P.T.'
(3.) According to me, court cannot come to such conclusion without any decision from the academicians who are technically sound in the subject. Therefore, according to me, the matter should have been sent to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to form an equivalence committee of at least three eminent educationists who will study that qualification to come to such conclusion by furnishing a report to the Board which will be communicated to the institution as well as to the petitioner for the purpose of coming to an appropriate conclusion. But before circulating the same Board should remember that the petitioner has also obtained a B.Ed, degree during the tenure of work as Assistant Headmistress in the year 1993 without any study leave as it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Secretary of the institution. Both the parties have relied upon 79 -Edn.(S) dated 28 -1 -94 issued by the Government of West Bengal where I find that the special leave on full pay may be granted to a" teacher or non -teaching staff of an institution who intends to appear in one of the examinations noted below i.e., B.Ed. etc. But I do not find exactly what will happen in case of refusal granting leave by the Board but when School has given the permission. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also contended that she has studied in a night college. In any event from such notification, one inference can be drawn that if the leave is refused on such account the same will be construed as leave without pay but not more than that. The petitioner cannot be disallowed from sitting in the examination if she is otherwise entitled. Therefore, the degree cannot be held Invalid without leave. It cannot be very much supportive value for the contention of the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or any other respondents who are opposing grant of such leave. At best, 'they will not make full payment as per the notification itself.;