AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal arises from judgment and order dated 7th February 2017 passed in WP 1997(W) of 2017, by which the writ petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner was dismissed being devoid of merit.
Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Blind Section) on 17th April 2001 with effect from 1st May 2001 in an
institution for education and training of multiple handicapped. The said institution was an unrecognized institution and the recognition was subsequently
granted on 4th April 2007 when the Government of West Bengal decided to give sponsorship to the said institution. Naturally, the teaching and non-
teaching staffs of the said institution were also required to be recognized and approved by the Government and a proposal for their approval was sent
to the Government.
By a Memo dated 4th April 2007, the Director of Mass Education Extension, West Bengal granted approval of the appointment of the existing
employees of the said institution and the name of the appellant/petitioner figured in serial no. 10 thereof. In the note column appended to the said
Memo, the said Director expressed clearly that the persons, who are appearing in the serial numbers mentioned therein, shall not get any increment or
in other words, the increment shall be stopped unless the said persons completed the relevant training course within three years from the date of
approval.
Interestingly, the effect of such approval was given from the retrospective date i.e. 1st December 2005, which clinches the issue, more particularly,
whether the period of three years should be counted from the date of the said Memo or from the retrospective date when the approval is to take
effect.
The appellant/petitioner approached this Court claiming an increment as he successfully completed the training course and obtained Diploma in Special
Education (Visual Impairment) in the year 2009. The appellant/petitioner approached the authorities to grant increment as he had excelled in his
academic qualification by getting the Diploma from a recognized institution. The said increment does not appear to have been granted by the
authorities nor was there any express order of its rejection. While dismissing the writ petition, the Single Bench held that since the petitioner did not
challenge the Memo dated 4th April 2007, by which the approval was granted to his appointment by the Director of Mass Education Extension, he is
not entitled to any relief in the form of an increment.
Indubitably, the training course is of two years and the appellant/petitioner upon getting the approval joined such training course and obtained Diploma
in the year 2009. The first and foremost point, which we considered to have been unfurled in the instant matter, is whether the appellant/petitioner
successfully fulfilled the condition of approval having obtained Diploma within three years from the date of the approval or not.
The State is banking upon the language used in the Memo of Approval in contending that if the period of three years is to be reckoned from the date
when the approval takes effect, admittedly the appellant/petitioner has completed the training course beyond the said period and, therefore, is not
entitled to an increment.
On literal interpretation of the expressions and the words used in the said Memo, we also find that it conveys the same message, but considering the
fact that the duration of the training course is of two years, such interpretation would render the approval unworkable and/or detrimental to the interest
of the Assistant Teachers.
Though feebly, it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to render services as
Assistant Teacher having no requisite training, yet we find that the State approved his appointment being unoblivion of the fact that he was untrained.
The aforesaid impression is gathered from the qualification indicated in the serial number in which the name of the appellant/petitioner is appearing.
Once the State found him eligible for such post and granted approval to his appointment, it is not open to the State to take a U-turn and impinge upon
the educational qualification or otherwise.
So far as the increment is concerned, the Memo of Approval clearly mandates the completion of the training course within three years with effect
from the date of the approval. The said Memo was issued on 4th April 2007 and if it is construed that the completion of the training course is to be
done from the date when such approval is taking effect retrospectively, the candidates including the appellant/petitioner shall never be entitled to an
increment and, therefore, the order of approval would be meaningless.
The expressions “from the date of the approval†should be read when the order of approval was passed by the State Government and not from
the date when it is directed to take effect to. The authorities cannot blow hot and cold nor can approbate and reprobate at the same time in granting
the approval to the appointment on the one hand and depriving the increment on the other hand by putting a condition, which appears to be
meaningless for the reason that its performance cannot be secured within the time frame.
The intention, which we gather from the aforesaid expressions used therein, is that the increment of the approved teacher shall be stopped if he does
not undergo the training course within three years from the date of issuance of such Memo approving his appointment.
We do not concur nor subscribe to the view of the Single Bench that since the appellant/petitioner did not challenge the said Memo dated 4th April
2007, the writ petition is not entertainable as the point, which was involved therein, was that after completing the training course within three years
from the date of issuance of the said Memo whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled to an increment.
Since we have held that the appellant/petitioner fulfils the aforesaid condition, there is no justification on the part of the State in withholding the
increment of the appellant/petitioner or the accrual of such right upon successfully completing the training course from the recognized institution.
The impugned order is, thus, set aside. The appeal is allowed. The concerned respondent shall give an increment to the appellant/petitioner having
successfully completed the training course with effect from 1st July 2009, as recommended by the Principal/Secretary of the institution, within six
weeks from the date of communication of this order. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 9772 of 2017
becomes infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of.