JAGADISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition being W.P. No. 461 of 2010 which was filed by the writ petitioner, was disposed of by this Court ex-parte on 11th January, 2011 by quashing the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Barrackpore, on 31st January, 2008 being Annexure "P/7" to the writ petition. By the said order, the said District Inspector of Schools was directed to rectify the erroneous entries regarding the date of appointment of the petitioner in the said school, recorded in the Memo dated 23rd October, 2002 whereby the list of approved and bonafide teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school was forwarded by the concerned District Inspector of Schools to the Administrator of the said school. By the said order the concerned District Inspector of Schools was also directed to update his records including the approval letter dated 2nd January, 2007 being Annexure "P/5" to this writ petition appearing at page 17 thereof. THE said District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) was directed to complete the entire exercise in this regard within four weeks from the date of communication of the said order. THE said District Inspector of Schools, who was respondent no.4 in the said writ petition, subsequently filed this application praying for recall of the said order passed by this Court on 11th January, 2011. THE said recall application is now under consideration before this Court.

(2.) LET me now consider the merit of this application in the fact of the instant case. The petitioner claimed that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Science Group in Gouripur Hindu High School on 3rd December, 1985. He further claimed that his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the said school was approved by the then District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), with effect from 3rd December, 1985 and such approval was communicated to the school authority by the said District Inspector of Schools by his letter under Memo No. 5049/BKP-53 dated 27th December, 1985. By the said communication not only the approval of the service of the writ petitioner with effect from 3rd December, 1985 was communicated to the school authority but also approval of service of five other teachers who were appointed on different dates in December 1985 was communicated to the school authority.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that in those documents, the date of appointment of the petitioner's service was mentioned as 1st August, 1987 but at the same time this Court cannot ignore the resolution which was adopted by the school authority on 30th August, 2008 being Annexure "R/9" to the affidavit in opposition wherein it was unanimously resolved that the concerned District Inspector of Schools should be moved for correction of the date of appointment of the petitioner, so that his basic pay is revised accordingly. That apart letter written by the teacher-in-charge of the said school to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) on 27th December, 2006 also cannot be lost sight of, as by the said letter, the school authority also requested the said District Inspector of Schools to correct the Board's record regarding wrong entry of the date of appointment of six teachers of the said school including that of the petitioner. The petitioner's date of appointment in the said school on 03.12.1985 was confirmed by the school authority in both the said resolution and the letter written by the teacher-in-charge on 27.12.2006. The audit report of the school account for the period of 1985-86 being Annexure "R-10" of the affidavit in opposition also cannot be lost sight of as the name of the petitioner was also included as an Assistant Teacher of the said school in the said audit report showing his date of appointment on 3rd December, 1985.