- (1.) This Rule is at the instance of the petitioners who contend that they are the teachers-in-position as also, it is alleged, the organiser-teachers of Radhanagar Free Primary School under the Burdwan District School Board. The petitioners have challenged the appointments of Respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16 as organiser-teachers of the said school in preference to the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that on or about 1st of Novembers, 1968 the villagers of Radhanagar established the school which started functioning on certain plots of land and the management of the school vested in a Management Committee formed by the local people present in the meeting held on 24th of October, 1968. In the said meeting Respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16 were appointed as teachers of the said school. It is alleged that the Respondent no. 14 resigned from the post of teacher with effect from 27th of January, 1969 and on the same date the resignation was accepted and petitioner no. 1 was appointed Headmaster of the school with effect from 1st of February, 1969. At a meeting of Managing Committee held on February 17, 1969 it dismissed the Respondent No. 16 from service on the basis of certain charges levelled against him. After the said dismissal, the Managing Committee of the School at its meeting held on February 21, 1969 appointed petitioner no. 2 as teacher of the said school in place of Respondent no. 16 with effect from February 26. 1969. Accordingly the petitioners joined the service in the said school. On December 12, 1969 the Managing Committee of the School appointed petitioner no. 3 as a teacher of the said School with effect from 1st of January 1970. With effect from August 25, 1972 the Respondent no. 15 continuously absented himself from the school and he left the service of the school voluntarily. It is alleged that after their appointments the petitioners herein have all along been performing their duties efficiently and satisfactorily and that there was no complaint against the petitioners. It appears that Respondent no. 13 inspected the school on 7th of February, 1972 and found that the petitioners were all working since their appointments and after inspection, the Respondent no. 13 submitted a report to the respondent no. 3 that all the petitioners along with the respondent no. 15 were serving in the school The school was granted recognition by the I State Government with effect from 15th of July, 1972. After the recognition the respondent no. 13 inspected the school, checked up the relevant records as also the relevant roll of the teachers and the said respondent also found that the respondent Nos. 14 and 16 were not in service of the school on the ground of resignation and dismissal. The respondent no. 13 thereafter submitted his report to the respondent no. 3 stating the actual teacher strength of the school. It is alleged that pursuant to the Government's policy to appoint teachers in the-primary school after granting recognition, each of the petitioners received a notice on January 11, 1973 whereby the petitioners were directed to appear for interview before the District Selection Committee. In the said letter which is Annexure 'A' to the petition, the petitioners were stated to be organiser-teachers of the school. It appears I further that the petitioners appeared before the said Selection Committee for interviews. It is stated that even though the respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16 were not in service, they received letters for interview from respondent no. 3. The Selection Committee, however, was in favour of appointments of respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16, though it was alleged that they were not in service at all. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the Selection Committee refused to see the relevant papers of the petitioners in support of their claims for appointment and also found that the selection of teachers is going to be made not in accordance with law but on other extraneous political considerations. Be that as it may, the Selection Committee forwarded the list of organiser-teachers and teachers-in-position to the Director of Public Instruction for approval. It is alleged that the D.P.I. himself did not apply his mind in the matter and in fact the Special Officer of the Department approved the list. On the basis thereof, letters of appointment were sent to respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16 and the petitioners' appointments were not at all considered by the D. P. I. Being aggrieved by the said appointments of respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
(2.) While issuing the Rule, an ad-interim order was given only to the extent that the petitioners will continue as organiser-teachers but will not be paid salary pending the hearing of the Rule and the question of salary will be decided on the result of the Rule.
(3.) Mr. Nagendra Mohan Saha appeared on behalf of the District School Board, Burdwan and Mr. Jamini Kumar Bauerjee for the Director of Public Instruction before me. It is argued by Mr. Saha that the Selection Committee recommended the names of respondent Nos. 14, 15 and 16 which were approved by the D.P.I. On such approval being communicated by the letter dated 21st of August, 1972 the appointments were made. Mr. Jamini Kumar Banerjee appeared before me on behalf of the Director of Public Instruction and filed an affidavit, the relevant portions of which are set out below:- "4. With reference to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the said application I say that the State Government does not grant recognition to such Schools. The Director of Public Instruction only approves the proposals submitted by the District Inspector of Schools (P) who is the Administrator of the Board. 5. With reference to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the said application, I say that the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, approved the cases submitted by the District Inspector of Schools (P), District School Board, Burdwan. The Advisory Committee of the Board advises the District Inspector of Schools (P), who has the authority to agree or disagree with their recommendations. The Directorate therefore considers the proposals as the proposals of the District Inspector of Schools (P) unless the District Inspector of Schools (P) gives his note of dissent. In this case the District Inspector of Schools (P) considered the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but in taking decision he applied his mind and acted upon his own discretion and as such the approval of the proposal of the District Inspector of Schools (P) is valid and legal". It appears from the said affidavit that the D.P.I. did not personally approve the case, or does not consider the proposal unless the District Inspector of Schools (P) gives his note of dissent to the list sent by the Advisory Committee. It is however stated that by taking decision the District Inspector of Schools has applied his mind and acted on his discretion and as such the approval of the District Inspector of Schools is valid and legal.;