Vikas Shridhar Sirpurkar, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be regularised as teacher since he was not an organising teacher. In this the learned Single Judge has given the finding of fact that the said teacher was employed on 2nd April, 1984 but the inspection by the District Level Inspection Team (hereinafter referred to as DLIT) had taken place earlier to that and his name was not to be found in the inspection report as the teacher was not present at the time of DLIT inspection. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the salary, if, any, earned by the original writ petitioner should be refunded and for that purpose recovery should be made since the original appointment of the writ petitioner itself was bad and unjustified in law.
(2.) The following facts will highlight the controversy involved in the matter:- (1). The writ petitioner claimed that he started his service in the school from 2nd of April, 1984. The name of the concerned schpol is Debigunj Vivekananda Junior High School. It is an admitted position that the school was started somewhere in the year 1974 and got the recommendation from the Government only on 2nd January, 1987. The petitioner claimed that two other teachers namely Sri Satya Ranjan Biswas and Smt. Anjali Biswas were also appointed though the name of the petitioner was placed after these two persons perhaps because these two persons are in continuation as teachers in the said school. The petitioner is at present not continuing as per the recommendation granted by the Board to the school as Junior High School with permission to open Class- V and VI with effect from 1st January, 1986 and Class-VII and VIII with effect from 1st January, 1987. (2). The petitioner for the first time moved this High Court in 1989 by filing a writ petition [C.O. No.16704(W) of 1989] as he was not shown to be the approved teacher in the communication dated 15th July, 1988 by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Darjeeling. This writ petition was allowed and the Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee (as His Lordship then was) directed the Director of School Education to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of his representation. (3). The Director of School Education accordingly heard the petitioner as also the other two teachers mentioned earlier and came to the conclusion that none of those three teachers could be conferred the status of organising teachers, therefore, there could not be an automatic approval in their cases. The order of the Director of School Education was passed on 20th March, 1990. After hearing the representative of the petitioner a clearest finding in that order was given to the effect that all the three teachers were appointed only "after1 the inspection by the DLIT, as when the inspection was being taken up these three teachers were not seen to be present as organising teachers. (4). For the reasons unknown the petitioner did not challenge this order, instead he started firing representations to the Director of School Education taking objection to his order dated 20th March, 1990 but did not challenge the same in any manner. He also fired some representations to the District Inspector of Schools and very strangely on 22nd January, 1993 the District Inspector of Schools, Siliguri passed an order granting approval to the petitioner along with Sri Satya Ranjan Biswas in Science- Math Group. Accordingly, the petitioner forced his way to the school. He was not allowed by the school to join and in fact the petitioner admittedly came to know that the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Siliguri was contemplating recall of the order passed on 22nd January,1993. This seems to be really probable because it is obvious that the District Inspector of Schools had no authority whatsoever to sit over the order passed by the Director of School Education, who is the higher authority who has passed the order after hearing the petitioner. That order had also become final. The order dated 22nd January, 1993 passed by the District Inspector of School very strangely does not make any mention of the earlier orders passed by the Director of School Education dated 20th March, 1990. (5). However, seeing that the said order dated 22nd January, 1993 was either going to be recalled or cancelled, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition [C.O.No.5791(W) of 1993] and an order came to be passed therein restraining the authority from passing any such recalling order. The petitioner on the basis of this order of the ' High Court joined the school and started teaching in the school. This order was passed by the Justice D. K. Basu (as His Lordship then was) on 26th May, 1993. It seems that the petitioner thereafter continued to serve till the dismissal of the writ petition on 13th July, 2001. In the meantime the petitioner also sought release of the arrears of the salary and that was also ordered in his favour by an order dated 6th September, 1996. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,47,556/- was directed to be given to the petitioner by way of arrears of salary till then. The order passed by the Justice D. K. Basu (as His'Lordship then was) was sought to be vacated by the Managing Committee by making an application. However, it seems that the said application was directed to be heard along with the writ petition itself. The original petitioner supported the order by filing a supplementary affidavit before us. (6). It was only on 10th November, 2000 when the petitioner for the first time moved an application for amendment of the writ petition by challenging the order of the Director of School Education dated 20th March, 1990 which had so far remained unchallenged, that amendment was also allowed. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the same. As has been stated earlier the learned Single Judge had also directed refund of salaries paid to him.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very earnestly urges before us that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner should not get the advantage of an organising teacher is factually not cqrrect. According to the learned Counsel there is no evidence-on-record that there was any DLIT inspection for the school or any inspection team ever took the inspection of the school. Learned Counsel is at pains to point out that there was no authentic document in the shape of an inspection report produced before the Court and in fact the documents which were produced is report were disbelieved by the learned Single Judge as not being authentic copy of the report. The learned Counsel submitted that there was n.o inspection at any point of time, therefore, it could not be held that the petitioner was employed only after the inspection report and that the petitioner was not found to be the organising teacher in the inspection of the DLIT. Learned Counsel, attacks the order of the Director of School Education on the ground that the Director did not have before him any records as such his finding that the petitioner was employed after the inspection and could not be the organising teacher could not be said to be a correct finding. We were taken through the records extensively as also the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment. The learned Counsel argues that once a finding regarding the DLIT goes then automatically the petitioner would get the status of an organising teacher and would be entitled to the approval which was.rightly granted by the District Inspector of Schools.;