BIMAL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS (P.E.) & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-42
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 12,1996

BIMAL KUMAR GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
District Inspector Of Schools (P.E.) And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th September, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.O. No. 13355(W) of 1991 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner was summarily rejected. Mr. Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the petitioner was an organiser teacher and had been working in the Kuthipara Primary School since 1972 and thus as an organiser teacher after the said school was recognised, he had a right to be absorbed.
(2.)The Learned Counsel in support of the aforementioned contention has relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Monoranjan Maity & Ors. reported in 85 CWN, 788.
(3.)The question as to whether the school in question is recognised or not appears to be in dispute. The District Inspector of Schools (P.E.). Nadia, in his report dated 31.7.91 which was the subject -matter of the writ application filed by the petitioner stated as follows :
i). It is not a fact the school he claimed to have organised, has been granted recognisation. Although a new Primary School of public management was set up at the initiative of the District School Board.

ii). It is not fact that any teacher was ever appointed for organising allegedly primary school in connection with the school.

iii). It is also a fact that the managing authority for allegedly organising primary school has never been approved by the District School Board, Nadia according to the condition of the statutory Rule No. 5(6) as promulgated under notification No. 2513 -Edn. dated 31.7.1936 in connection with 54 of the Bengal Rural Primary Education Act 1930.

And

It is also a fact that there is no provisions for the appointment of any organiser teacher of the Rural Primary School after the promulgation of Amendment of Rule 3(4) vide Notification No. 713 -Edn (p) dated 11.9.80 in connection with the Rules to provide for the condition of appointment of teachers in primary schools maintained by the District School Boards as well as the fixation of their salaries referred to in clause (g) of Subsection (i) of Sec. 23 of the Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930. It may also be noted that the petitioner applied to the President. District School Board. Nadia on 12.8.88 and instituted the case in the same year i.e. long after the amendment of Rule 3(D).

In view of the above observation the matter be disposed of with the following opinion of the undersigned that the petitioner has no lawful claim for appointment as an organiser teacher.

;


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