High Court · 2012

It is the contention of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.4585/2011 that though they were the founder assistant teacher and Grade-IV staff, respect ively, of Alagjar M.E. School, their names, however, have not been mentioned in the inspection report dated 26.05.2010, consequence of which is the deprivation from getting the share of financial assistance granted by the State. According t o the petitioners of the said writ petition, in the inspection report submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer and Block Elementary Education Offi cer on 14.10.1996, 09.04.1997, 02.08.2002 and 06.12.2004 while the name of the p etitioner No.1 appears, the name of the petitioner No.2 has appeared in the firs t two inspection report, namely, dated 14.10.1996 and 09.04.1997. It is also the case of the petitioners that the name of the petitioner No.2 did not find place in the subsequent inspection reports dated 02.08.2002 and 06.12.2004, as he was ill at the relevant point of time, but subsequently though he has resumed his d uties as Chowkidar, his name did not figure in the inspection report dated 26.05 .2010. The claim of the petitioner in WP(C) No.339/2012 is that though he was t he founder Headmaster of the said school and his name appears in all the 4(four) inspection reports, his name also did not appear in the inspection report dated 26.05.2010. According to the petitioners, on the date when the said inspection report was submitted, all of them were serving and also presently serving in the respective capacities and therefore, there cannot any reason for not releasing of the financial assistance granted by the State. The respondents, more particularly the Director of Education, BTC and th e respondent Nos.7 to 12 have contested the claim of the petitioners by filing t heir respective affidavits. While admitting that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W P(C) No.4585/2011 and the petitioner in WP(C) No.339/2012 were the founder assis tant teacher, Grade-IV staff and the Headmaster, respectively, it has been plead ed that the petitioner in WP(C) No.339/2012 in the year 2005 having misappropria ted the grant given to the school and involvement in a criminal case did not att end to his duties and therefore, initially the proforma respondent No.11 was all owed to hold the charge of the Headmaster in the year 2007 and thereafter the re spondent No.7 has been selected and appointed as Headmaster, who is presently se rving. It has also been contended that the petitioner No.1 in WP(C) No.4585/2011 in the year 2005 resigned and took away the deposit of Rs.7,000/- made by him a nd thereafter on 07.05.2010 he again filed an application for his appointment af resh. The further contention of the respondents in the affidavit is that the pet itioner No.2 in WP(C) No.4585/2011 has left the school in the year 2000 and ther eafter the respondent No.9 has been engaged as Grade-IV staff in the year 2000 a nd is still continuing. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the backdrop of suc h assertion made in the writ petitions submits that before releasing the financi al assistance to the teachers of the school in question, a detailed inquiry is r equired to be made as to who are entitled to receive the financial assistance. I t has also been submitted that though the petitioners are still working in their respective capacities, they are sought to be deprived from the financial assist ance granted by the State. The further contention is that the inspection report dated 26.05.2010 does not reflect the correct position of the school, which in f act, has been kept in abeyance by the District Elementary Education Officer, Bak sa himself vide order dated 23.08.2010. The learned standing counsel BTC as well as the learned counsel appearin g for the respondent Nos.7 to 12, on the other hand, referring to above noted st and taken in the affidavit-in-opposition, have submitted that since the petition ers in these writ petitions are not in service, they are not entitled to receive the financial assistance granted by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.339/2012, however, ha s refuted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the resp ondents. According to the learned counsel, against the petitioner in the said wr it petition though there is a criminal case pending, he has not been placed unde r suspension and is still continuing. It is not in dispute that the financial assistance has been granted by t he respondent authorities to the said school for the financial year 2010-11. The dispute is who is entitled to receive the financial assistance. While the petit ioners are claiming that they being the founder teachers and staff and still in service, they are entitled to receive the financial assistance, which, however, has been denied by the respondents, as noticed above. Since the financial assistance has been granted by the respondent author ities from out of the public fund, the respondent authorities are duty bound to ensure that the financial assistance is utilized for the purpose for which it is granted and the benefit of such financial assistance is received by the persons who deserve to receive the same. Hence the present petitions are disposed of di recting the Deputy Commissioner, Baksa, to cause an enquiry, either by himself o r through the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, to find out the persons, who are entitl ed to receive the financial assistance. Such enquiry shall be made taking into a ccount the school records and also the documents that may be submitted by the pe titioners as well as by the respondents. Necessary opportunity of hearing shall also be afforded to all concerned including the petitioners and the private resp ondents. A speaking order, after conclusion of such enquiry, shall be passed, co pies of which shall be made available immediately to the parties concerned. On t he basis of the order that may be passed by the said authority, the financial as sistance granted by the respondent authorities shall be disbursed. The financial assistance which has already been sanctioned shall not be disbursed to anyone t ill aforesaid order is passed as directed. The entire process is directed to be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of the ce rtified copy of the order passed today by any of the parties before the Deputy C ommissioner.