Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Mrs. Najmun Nesa Ansari, Mrs. Hamida Parwin and Quiser Jahan respectively being the Teacher -in -charge and teaching staff of an organizing school, namely, Fatema Girls' Junior High School situated at 57A, R.K. Road, Post Office Rishra, district Hooghly praying for approval of their appointment as Assistant Teacher of the said schools since recognized. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23 May, 2006, passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, rejecting the petitioners' prayer for approval of appointment.
(2.) ON 14th November, 2014, when this writ petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsels for the writ petitioner and the Managing Committee of the school appeared but no one appeared on behalf of the State respondents. A notice was directed to be served upon the learned counsel appearing for the State and, accordingly, a notice dated 17th November, 2014, was served by the learned advocate for the petitioner which is kept with the record. However, despite service of notice no one appeared on behalf of the State respondents. Briefly, the petitioners' case is that for the fourth time this writ petition has been moved by the three writ petitioners seeking approval of their appointment as organizing teaching staff of Fatema Girls' Junior High School, which is, according to the petitioner, the only Urdu medium Girls' School in the district of Hooghly. The school was established by the local people in 1982. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 1st February, 1983, petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 2nd July, 1993 and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 8th December, 1996, as it appears from Annexure P -2 respectively at pages 59, 60 and 61 of the writ petition. It is the positive case of the petitioners that they have been rendering their services to the school till date. District Level Inspection Team carried out inspection and ultimately, the school was recognized on 1st August, 2000 without granting approval to the services of the organizing staff. The three writ petitioners as teaching staff claimed their entitlement for approval of their services as organizing teaching staff but the same having been denied, the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court and this Court passed an order on 19th February, 2001, inter alia, directing the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioners. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed a reasoned order on 22nd May, 2001 and by his reasoned order rejected the claim of the petitioners for approval of their appointments as organizing teacher. The said order of 22nd May, 2001 was challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1101(W) of 2001 and Hon'ble Justice M.H.S. Ansari, as His Lordship then was, by an order dated 26th February, 2002, inter alia, was pleased to direct the Director of School Education, West Bengal to consider the case of the petitioners after calling for respective records. However, by a reasoned order dated 23 September, 2002 the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of West Bengal, rejected the claim of the petitioners. The said order was again challenged by the petitioners in W.P. No. 1190(W) of 2003 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Justice Maharaj Sinha by a judgment and order dated 23 March, 2006. While disposing of the said writ petition being W.P. 1190(W) of 2003 His Lordship set aside the aforesaid order dated 23 September, 2003, passed by the Secretary, Education Department, Government of West Bengal and after recording the entire case of the petitioners directed the 5th respondent, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, to cause an inspection of the records maintained by the school, namely, Fatema Girls' Junior High School including Attendance Registers, students' Registers, Minutes of the meetings of the Managing Committee, respective letters of appointment of the writ petitioners as teaching staff of the school in question and also other contemporaneous documents, if any, for the purpose of arriving at a decision regarding approval of appointments of the petitioners as teaching staff within a time period fixed in the said order. It was further held that once a fresh decision has been taken by the said 5th respondent and once he is satisfied that the petitioners had been working in the said school on the basis of their respective appointments, the 5th respondent was directed to approve the respective appointments of the petitioners as teaching staff. In the concluding part of the judgment His Lordship also held that by virtue of the interim order or orders passed earlier the services of the writ petitioners had been duly protected as the concerned teaching staff of the said school. The relevant portions of the said judgment are set out below: "Having, thus, read and considered the impugned order of the Secretary, Education Department, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the above two cases, namely the above two writ petitions and having regard to the established principles of law as highlighted in the decisions of the Appeal Court in Abdul Kuddus (Supra) and in Md. Hassan's case (Supra), the impugned order of the Secretary dated 23 September 2002 should be and is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Hooghly, the 5th respondent herein is, therefore, directed to cause an inspection of the records maintained by both the said two schools, namely Fatema Junior High School and Bankipur Sumitabala Bidyamandir in the district of Hooghly including Attendance Registers, Students' Registers, Minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee or rather Committees, respective letters of appointment of the writ petitioners as teaching and non -teaching staff of the schools in question and other contemporaneous documents, if any, for the purpose of arriving at his decision regarding the approval of appointments of the writ petitioners as teaching and non -teaching staff of the said two schools within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and before such inspection or inspections are made by the concerned District Inspector of Schools he shall give due notice to all the writ petitioners and all other concerned. Needless to mention that in making the inspection for the purpose of taking afresh decision the 5th respondent shall ignore the earlier report or rather the reports of the District Level Inspection Team or Teams in respect of the above two schools altogether. Once afresh decision has been taken in terms of the above direction by the 5th respondent and once he is satisfied that the petitioners have been working in the said two schools as the teaching and non -teaching staff on the basis of their respective appointments in the said two schools, the 5th respondent shall, needless to mention, approve the respective appointments of the teaching and non -teaching staff of the said two schools, namely the writ petitioners in the above two writ petitions and needless to mention again that once the respective appointments of the writ petitioners are approved they will be entitled to all the financial benefits including their salaries as teaching and non -teaching staff of the schools concerned in accordance with law. It appears that by virtue of the interim order or orders passed earlier in the above two writ petitions by this Court the services of the writ petitioners had and have been protected as teaching and non -teaching staff of the said schools. The concerned respondent or rather the respondents, it appears as well, had and have not contested the above writ proceedings at any stage. Thus, both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order." Out of the two writ petitions mentioned in the aforesaid judgment these petitioners filed W.P. No. 1190(W) of 2003. It is important to point out that the aforesaid order dated 23 March, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Maharaj Sinha as His Lordship then was, was never challenged by any of the respondents. Therefore, the findings and/or observations made in the said judgment become conclusive and binding upon the parties. It is further necessary to point out here that the aforesaid order dated 23 March, 2006 records that if the petitioners were actually working in the concerned school then their respective appointments should be approved by the District Inspector of Schools and in order to justify whether the petitioners were actually working or not I have to scrutinize the records of the case which the District Inspector of Schools ought to have done.
(3.) WHEN this writ petition was moved on 12th October, 2007, an order was passed by this Court directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the service of the writ petitioners. This order was passed in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the State. This pre -supposes that prima facie, the petitioners were working in the school in question. Thereafter, an order was passed on 8th August, 2008 wherein this Court directed for production of documents and registers before this Court. The Managing Committee of the school was directed to depute an authorized representative to this Court along with all relevant records for the years 1982 -2000. The said records were directed to be produced on 29th August, 2008 at 11 a.m. Subsequent to the said order dated 8th August, 2008 another order was passed on 3 September, 2008 by this Court and it appears that by the said order it was recorded that the school authorities have produced all the documents and registers for the years 1982 -2000 in Court. By the said order the school authorities were directed to give inspection of the documents to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents and also to Mr. Jakir Hossain, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It is stated at the Bar that such inspection had been given. From the order impugned it appears that the District Inspector of Schools caused an inspection on 22nd May, 2006 in respect of the records of the school including - a) Attendance Registers of teachers and non -teaching staff, b) Attendance Registers of the students, c) Minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee/Committees, d) Respective letters of appointment of the writ petitioners and other contemporaneous documents maintained by Fatema Girls' Junior High School. After causing such inspection the District Inspector of Schools have pointed out that - 1. "First, Attendance Registers of the students were inspected. The Registers were prepared from 29/01/1982. No conformity was found in between the Admission Register and the students' Attendance Registers. The attendance of the students was also marked but the style of marking of attendance indicates that the Registers were not filled in regularly for 18 years since 1982 to 2000 to mark the attendance of the students but they were purportedly manufactured in one or two sittings only to serve the purpose of inspection. 2. Secondly, the Registers for Attendance of the teachers and the staff were scrutinized. The attendance of i. Najmun Nesa Ansari ii. Hamida Prewar iii. Qaiser Johan IV. Daman Begam were shown from 01/02/1983, 02/07/1993, 28/12/1996 & 13/03/1996 respectively. All filled in pages of the Registers are more or less identical. It is only possible if the pages are filled in at a time by one or two sittings. No joining Report was found in support of their appointments in question. No prayer for leave by the teachers and the staff was found. 3. Thirdly, Minutes of the Managing Committee were also verified. It appears from the papers that all of a sudden the Managing Committee jumped into conclusion to appoint teachers & staff and thereby the teachers & staff were appointed. But in reality appointment is a long drawn process that requires so many discussions, decisions, meetings and correspondence which were not found in the minutes of the managing Committee. That is why, the minutes appear to me as manufactured and prepared after the said school had obtained the first recognition from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. All motivated attempts were made to show the petitioners' existence in the school before 01/08/2000. For example, in a single meeting the then Managing Committee decided to appoint Najmun Nesa Ansari with effect from February, 1983 and at the same Meeting, the Managing Committee decided that she will join from the 2nd May, 1983. Such type of absurdities was found in almost all cases. 4. Fourthly, Contemporaneous documents were also examined. Letter issue Registers and Letter receipt/docket Registers may be important documents of an institution to prove its existence for past time. But such registers were not found. The appointment letters of the petitioners bear no postal correspondence number and issue number of the institution.";