- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a non-sanctioned post in Shree Maheshwari Vidyalaya, which is a D.A. getting school. The petitioner joined his service in the said school in the Department of Commerce on 23rd March, 2004 and since then he has been rendering his service in the said school without any break. A vacancy in a sanctioned post in Social Science Group was created on 14th January, 2007 on the retirement of an approved Assistant Teacher, namely, Sri Ram Chandra Pandey, whose educational qualification was B.Sc., M.A., B.Ed. The school authority adopted a resolution recommending the petitioner's absorption in the said vacancy which was created on the retirement of the said approved Assistant Teacher so that he may get the admissible dearness allowance from the State respondents.
(2.) SINCE such proposal of the school authority remained unattended for a long time, the petitioner also requested the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) for early consideration of the school's proposal for absorbing him permanently in the said sanctioned vacancy. Ultimately, however, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19th November, 2008 in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 820 of 2008 filed by a number of unapproved Assistant Teachers of the said school, the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata, considered the school's proposal for regularizing the service of some of the unapproved Assistant Teachers including the petitioner and ultimately disposed of the school's such proposal by an order passed by him on 20th August, 2009. As a matter of fact, the school's proposal for approving the service of the petitioner in the aforesaid sanctioned vacancy was rejected by the said District Inspector of Schools as the appointment of the petitioner, according to the said District Inspector of Schools, was not made in conformity with the Government Orders, namely, G.O. No. 670- SE(S)/IM/14-98 dated 4th September, 1998 and Memo No. 169/1-SE(S)/4A-53/2001 dated 20th September, 2001. The legality and/or propriety of the said order as contained in Annexure P/2 to this writ petition at page 62, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the said Assistant Teacher. Let me now consider as to how far the concerned authority was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.
(3.) SINCE the concerned authority refused to approve the service of the petitioner in the said sanctioned vacancy on the basis of the aforesaid two Government Orders, this Court has carefully considered those two Government Orders which are annexed to this writ petition at page 69 and 46 respectively. So far as the Government Order dated 4th September, 1998 is concerned, this Court finds that the said Government Order was not issued by the Government for distribution of the teaching staff in a DA getting school. The said Government Order was issued on the subject of distribution of teaching staff in the recognized Non-Government Junior High School, Junior High Madrasah, High School, High Madrasah and Higher Secondary School (Normal Section). Thus, this Court can safely conclude that the said Government Order is not applicable to a DA getting school. As such the rejection of the school's proposal for approving the service of the petitioner in the said sanctioned vacancy on the basis of said Government Order, cannot be supported. Let me now consider the other Government Order dated 20th September, 2001 which was relied upon by the concerned District Inspector of Schools for ascertaining its application in the facts of the instant case.;