S.Chatterji, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned Memo No. 2199-GA dated 18th December, 1984 and Memo No. 5/GA dated 2nd/4th January, 1985 issued by the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal and the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Bankura being the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively and the copies of the orders are Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the duties performed by the petitioner as Headmaster of Putiadaha High School, District-Bankura and not to withhold the payment- of salary to the petitioner as the Headmaster of the said School since the month of December, 1984 and other consequential reliefs. It is stated in detail that the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of Kantore Mahadev High School, District-Midnapore with effect from 1st January, 1982 and his appointment as Headmaster of that School was approved and he was permitted to draw initial of the time scale without increment as recommended by the Managing Committee of the said School by the Inspector of Schools (SE), Midnapore as per Memo No. 142-S dated 7th January, 1975. It is stated further that he had-rendered his service to the entire satisfaction of the School Authorities and thereafter he had joined the present School viz. Putiadaha High School in the District of Bankura with effect from 1st April, 1970. After the revision of pay scale being introduced as per GO. No. 372-Edn(B) dated July 31, 1981 issued by the Government of West Bengal, the initial pay scale of the petitioner was also fixed as per the option exercised by him and the date from which the petitioner elected to come under the revised scale of pay in the substantive post being the 3rd April, 1981. The petitioner was, however, surprised to find all on a sudden that the Deputy Director of School Education (GA); West Bengal, the respondent No. 3 to the present writ petition by his Memo No. 2199-GA dated the 18th December, 1984 informed the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bankura that the petitioner did not fulfil any of the 'conditions as laid down in G.O. No. 386Edn(S) dated 12th of March, 1974 for time scale of pay prescribed for the post of Headrhaster. It is alleged that the approval as granted by the District Inspector of Schools as far back as in the year 1975 was extended upto 11th of March, 1977 and not furthermore and the petitioner has been asked to be immediatey replaced by a duly qualified candidate. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to recall the approval of the appointment of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Bankura and that such approval of appointment has been treated to be valid upto the 11th of March, 1977 and thereby the respondent No. 3 has most illegally curtailed the vested right of the petitioner for the post of the Headmaster of the said School. The petitioner claims that he has been working in the instant school for the period of 14 years and thereafter without giving any opportunity of hearing, the petitioner's right cannot be curtailed and there is no scope of review for the earlier order of the transfer of the appointment made by the. appropriate authority viz. the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Bankura as would be evident from the Annexure 'B' to the petition. It is highlighted that the impugned order as in Annexure 'D' has been passed by the respondent No. 3 causing serious loss of pay of the petitioner and such an order is prejudicial to the interest of the (petitioner and it cannot be sustained in law. It is emphasized that there is erroneous interpretation of GO. No. 386-Edn(S) dated 12th March, 1974 inasmuch as two other Finance (Audit) Department Memo No. 666-F dated the 1st March, 1971 and G.O. No. 1332 Edn(S) dated 24th December, 1976 have not been looked into.
(2.) The writ petition is seriously contested by the State respondents and the entire- records have been produced before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Jaimini Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued inter alia that the paragraph No. 3(d) of G.O. No. 386 Edn(S) dated 12th March, 1974 does not apply to the petitioner inasmuch as long before the 24th December, 1966 the petitioner was appointed and further his appointment as Headmaster of Kantore Mahadev High School, Midnapore with effect from 1st January, 1962 as in Annexure "A" hereof is relevant, and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is irregular and illegal.;