- (1.) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a para-teacher in Akpur Village Education Society, a primary Education Centre, run with the aid of the State. After she was selected for the post, she was initially not allowed to join as alleged by her. She was humiliated and manhandled at the instance of the President of the Society as claimed by her. She was infuriated and lodged a complaint that the Society did not consider her prayer for renewal. According to the Society, she never applied for renewal. However, the teacher concerned strenuously disputed such assertion. On January 10, 2009, the Members of the Society met at a meeting where the issue of renewal was discussed. It was alleged that there was no real need for appointment of para-teacher. The School had the strength of 59 students, whereas the school was already having two regular teachers. Moreover, the candidates having better merit were ignored and the successful one was chosen from a distant place. They unanimously resolved not to renew the contract.
(2.) Be that as it may, the Sub-Inspector of Schools, vide letter dated July 23 2009, asked the teacher-in-charge to renew the contract for another year. The School did not act upon the same. The concerned teacher approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition, being W.P. 17451 (W) of 2009. The learned Judge directed the School to act upon the memo issued by the Sub-Inspector of Schools. The learned Judge also observed that the Government had taken a decision for regularization of the existing para-teachers. The learned Judge also observed that the concerned teacher should not be deprived of the subsequent decision of the State on the issue of regularization. The matter was again considered by the Society in its meeting held on May 02, 2011, wherein the issue was again discussed. The teacher-in-charge apprised the Society about the High Court order and was in favour of renewal of the contract in terms of the High Court order. He was, however, critical about the teacher pupil ratio. According to him, the strength was reduced to 47 students and the School would really require a Head-teacher and not a para-teacher. It was also recorded that the concerned teacher was insubordinate and already litigating with a complaint made against the President of the Village Education Committee, who is running the School.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Routh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent and Mr. Pradip Dutta, learned senior Counsel appearing for the State.;