SHEKHAR B.SARAF,J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated February 7, 2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) South-24-Parganas (hereinafter referred to as 'DI of Schools') by which the said DI of School had rejected the claim of the writ petitioner with regard to the Child Care Leave (CCL).
(2.) The DI of Schools had been directed by this Hon'ble Court by an order dated November 16, 2017 to consider the representation of the writ petitioner. The DI of Schools in his order held as follows:- "i) the petitioner went on CCL just submitting a prayer and without any prior approval of the Managing Committee of the School which violates the para 10 of the circular No.S/MC dated 07.07.1981 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. iii) The petitioner was informed verbally by the School authority that her leave can be granted. Yet she enjoyed the CCL without prior approval of the Managing Committee. iv) The Managing Committee rejected her prayer for CCL in the Meeting No.5 dated 06.05.2017. The School Authority and in some special cases the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is the Leave Sanctioning Authority as per Leave Rules. In the Leave Rules Vide Circular No.S/MC dated 07.07.1981 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education it had been clearly mentioned that "Leave can be claimed as a matter of right". In Para 10(i) of the said circular it had been mentioned, "No Kind of Leave except Casual Leave should be availed of without written application and previous sanction except in very exception circumstances which should explained to the satisfaction of the Leave sanctioning authority". In the instant matter the petitioner enjoyed CCL without previous sanction of the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority i.e. the School Authority rejected her prayer for CCL. So, the prayer of the petitioner is considered and the decision of the School Authority is final. Further more the School authority is hereby directed to release the deducted salary of the petitioner if she prays for Leave for that period to the School Authority other than CCL and if admissible as per existing Leave Rules."
(3.) Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in spite of service on the school authorities, they have chosen to appear in this matter even though the matter has been taken up on several occasions. He submits that this is a clear case of mala fide on the part of the school authorities, which has given due consideration to the reasons for the leave sought by the writ petitioner. He further submits that there were no rules prevalent in the school at the material time when the leave was taken by the writ petitioner. He submits that it is only subsequently after the writ petitioner re-joined from her CCL that the managing committee passed a resolution and came up with a rule that an application for CCL should be submitted one month prior from the date of such leave. The managing committee also resolved on this particular date that only one person would be granted CCL at a time, unless there was an exceptional situation because of medical reasons of the child, wherein a second person may also be granted CCL.;