SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) The points to be determined in the present case are (I) Whether the District Inspector of School (S.E) , Paschim Midnapore can reject the claim of the petitioner for approval on certain cryptic and ambiguous grounds ? (ii) Whether the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act 2005 is applicable to a minority educational institution in West Bengal on the face of the provisions guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution of India?
(2.) Fact of The Case: The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows : - The Bhuta D.A.V High School (hereinafter referred to as the 'said school') is a recognised aided minority educational institution regulated/guided by Special Rules granted by the State of West Bengal and run by Arya Samaj. Further in exercise of powers conferred in Rule 33 of the 1969 Rules the State Government framed 'Special Rules' in the management of recognised aided institution established and run by Arya Samaj for Gurukul Vidyalaya Trust under the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. Those rules were notified vide notification No. 404-Edn (S) dated 19th March, 1973 and that notification is applicable in the institution of the petitioner. For seeking approval of her appointment under the 'Special Rule' the said school was empowered to join teaching and non-teaching staff since the appointments were made to sanction vacant posts and the salaries/allowances of which were to be paid from the public exchequer. Since the petitioner having requisite qualification for being appointed as assistant teacher in language group (Bengali) in the said school therefore, as the said post had fallen vacant on and from 31st October, 2007 due to retirement of one Mr. Sripda Maity, therefore the school authority wrote letter on 6th March, 2008 and 21st April, 2008 to the state authority to the effect that the school has decided to make arrangement of filling up the normal vacancy. In the result on 29th April, 2008 the school authority published an advertisement in Anandabazar Patrika and in response to that advertisement the petitioner applied for the said post. Accordingly on 23rd July. 2008 an interview was held by the school authority and the petitioner participated in the said interview. Thereafter a panel was prepared wherein the petitioner was placed first and one Santanu Singha Roy was second. The aforesaid selection was challenged by Sri Santanu Singha Roy before this Hon'ble Court in W.P No. 29015 (W) of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3rd December, 2008. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P No. 29291 (W) of 2008 interalia praying for direction upon the Managing Committee to submit the panel before the District Inspector of School (S.E) Paschim Midnapore for her approval. That writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 8th December, 2008 thereby directing the Managing Committee to prepare the panel in pursuance to the selection held on 23rd July, 2008 and to send the same to the appropriate authority within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. Upon receipt of the said panel the District Inspector of School (S.E), Paschim Midnatpore was also directed to take a decision in respect of the said panel in accordance with law within a specific time. Since the District Inspector of School (S.E), Paschim Midnapore refused to approve the panel therefore challenging the said order of refusal dated 13th March, 2009 said Sri Santanu Singha Roy filed a further writ petition being W.P No. 4262 (W) of 2009 and the Managing Committee of the said school in its meeting dated 18th December, 2009 decided to take re-interview with the same set of candidates. Accordingly, interview was held on 4th January, 2010. Thereafter the said Santanu Singha Roy filed a further writ petition A.S.T No. 1196 of 2009 subsequently renumbered as W.P 404 (W) of 2010 interaila challenging the decision for holding re-interview. The aforesaid petition was heard and the Hon'ble Court on 30th December, 2009 directed said Santanu Singha Roy to participate in the interview without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The present petitioner also appeared in the re-interview fixed on 4th January, 2010 before the Selection Committee and she was selected for appointment to the post of assistant teacher in language group (Bengali). Subsequently, appointment letter was issued by the said school on 9th January, 2010 in her favour and accordingly on 13th January, 2010 the petitioner joined the said post. Thereafter on 1st February, 2010 the Secretary of the Managing Committee submitted the papers pertaining to the said selection before the District Inspector of School (S.E), Paschim Midnapore for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant teacher in language group (Bengali) but till date the District Inspector of School (S.E) Paschim Midnapore failed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the said post of assistant teacher in language group (Bengali) as a result whereof the Secretary of the Managing Committee time to time made representation before the said District Inspector of School (S.E), Paschim Midnapore for according approval to the said panel but all in vain. Ultimately the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P No. 8175 (W) of 2010 and in the said writ petition the Hon'ble Court on 19th March, 2012 was pleased to dispose of the matter by directing the District Inspector of School (S.E) Paschim Midnapore to examine the claim of appointment of the writ petitioner by taking into consideration of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Kushadhwaj Mondal and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2008 (1) CLJ (Cal) Page 167. In terms of the said order the concerned District Inspector of School passed a decision on 6th August, 2012 thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for granting approval. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) Submissions of The Learned Advocates: Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the authority failed to appreciate that the Government has framed certain rules which has to be followed in totality. Mr. Sanyal further contended that authority also failed to consider the West Bengal Act XXVII of 1976 (West Bengal Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Post) in respect of the said school since there is no mentioning of exemption in the said 'Special Rule' of 1973.;