Kasbagola F.O.B. High Madrasah (H.S.) and Another vs State of West Bengal and Others

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The Court : The second petitioner claims that he is the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Kasbagola F.O.B. High Madrasah. He has brought this WP seeking a mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur to grant the Madrasah Authority permission to initiate recruitment process for appointing members of staff in the Madrasah. Case stated in the WP is that since the vacancy occurred before introduction of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, the Madrasah Authority is still empowered to make the recruitment.

Relying on Arjun Singh Rathore and Others Vs. B.N. Chaturvedi and Others, and the Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls'' High School, Nadia v. Archana Ghosh (Saha) & Ors., (2010) 4 WBLR (Cal) 381, Mr. Tapas Kumar Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioners has argued that since the vacancies in question occurred prior to introduction of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, the Madrasah Authority, not the Madrasah Service Commission, is entitled to make the recruitment.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya appearing for the Commission and relying on Memo No.188(19)-ME dated March 13, 2009 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Directorate of Madrasah Education has submitted that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, the Madrasah Authorities are not empowered to make any recruitment even if the vacancy had occurred prior to introduction of the Act.

Nothing in the two cited decisions applies to the present case. Under the law that was existing before introduction of the 2008 Act power for recruitment was conferred on the Madrasah Authorities. The power did not at once create any right of the Madrasah Authorities to make recruitment of members of staff in the Madrasahs. The Authorities deciding not to exercise power to make recruitment were not entitled to say that even after introduction of the 2008 Act they continued to possess the power to make recruitment for filling the vacancies which had occurred prior to introduction of the Act.

I am, therefore, of the view that by giving no attention to the petitioners'' request for prior permission the District Inspector of Schools did not commit any wrong. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.