ABDUR RAHIM MIR Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-5-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 06,1996

Abdur Rahim Mir Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of West Bengal And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This Appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 17th April, 1988 passed by Mahitosh Majumdar, J. in Civil Order No. 1692 (W) of 1987, whereby and where under the said learned Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the writ -petitioner -appellant. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(2.) The writ -petitioner -appellant claims himself to be an assistant teacher of Borhal Kamala Devi Pratishan (Co -Education) High School (hereinafter referred to as the 'said School'). He passed the Fazal Examination, whereafter he was admitted for assistant teacher for Arabic language, by the Administrator of the said School on 2.1.78 on a monthly salary of Rs. 40/ - which was later on increased to a sum of Rs. 50/ -per month of March 1979. According to the petitioner -appellant owing to has untiring efforts number of Muslim students was increased in the school and in the year 1983 the total number of Muslim students came around one hundred four and thirty -two students of Class VII to X took up Arabic as their, third language. The writ -petitioner -appellant contends that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to which the said School is affiliated however, refused to sanction the post of Arabic teacher and thus his services were terminated from 1st February, 1980. The writ -petitioner -appellant filed a suit in the court of Second Munsif, Serampore, Hooghly, which was registered as Title Suit No. 14 of 1981, praying, inter alia, therein that he be reinstated in the service. However, he withdrew the said suit as he was reinstated as part -time Arabic teacher by the said School authority on and from 10.1.83. The writ -petitioner -appellant has contended that at that time he was assured by the school authority that his appointment would be confirmed, if he raised the number of Muslim students considerably. According to the writ -petitioner -appellant the number of Muslim students increased from fifty to one hundred four and in classes VII to X, thirty -two students took Arabic as their third language. The writ -petitioner -appellant has contended further that he was not paid any salary as teacher of the said school despite repeated demands. He thereafter filed a representation before the Respondent No. 3, whereupon an enquiry was held. The Respondent No. 3 submitted a report on 11.6.84 to the Respondent No. 2 allegedly stating therein that a good number of Muslim students are willing to take Arabic as their Third language and as such the said authority recommended for approval of his services as assistant teacher. However, 'no order thereupon was passed by the Respondent No. 2. He filed a writ application before this Court which was marked as Civil Order No. 7120(W) of 1986 and by a judgment dated 19.5.86 P. K. Majumdar, J. disposed of the said writ application directing the Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's case for approval. The writ -petitioner -appellant thereafter filed a representation, inter alia, stating that there is no other Arabic teacher in the said School and he had been teaching Arabic language for a long time. The writ -petitioner -appellant filed another writ application which came up before U.C. Banerjee, J. and his Lordship by a judgment dated 30th July, 1986 disposed of the said writ application directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in terms of the Government notification.
(3.) By an order dated 28.8.86 the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval of the appointment of the writ -petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ application questioning the said order. The matter came up before the learned Trial Judge who in view of the fact that the writ -petitioner in the writ application had not mentioned, about the order passed by Justice Banerjee, dismissed the writ application on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.