The order dated 9.2.94 then went on to provide as follows After passing of this order, numberhing remains to be decided in the appeal.
It is this order dated 9th February, 1994, as aforesaid, After passing of this order numberhing remains to becided in the appeal.
It appears that the Board from time to time granted ad hoc special permissions for the Class X students to appear at the school final examinations.
Since nine teaching staff and three number teaching staff had already been approved for classes V to VIII what was required to be permitted was approval to an additional six teaching and one additional number teaching staff.
relevant information with regard to this request for approval was required both by the District Inspector of schools DIS as well as by the Board.
The staff pattern originally approved was six teaching including Head Master and two number teaching staff.
On refusal by the Madrasah Education Board to send its candidates as before for appearing at the said examination in 1981, the said Madrash was companystrained to move the High Court and obtained permission for the same for the period from 1982 to 1986.
The submission on the face of it is that the prayer for approval was for a number fat in excess of the permitted staff pattern.
On 12.1.94 the learned Single Judge after hearing the Writ Application directed the authorities to grant approval of 31 teaching and number teaching staff.
The said C.R.No.
Thereafter, series of cases including companytempt proceedings went on before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
On 6.8.92, the management of the said Madrasah forwarded to the appellant authorities a list of 31 staff members companysisting of 24 teaching and 7 number teaching staff for approval.
Further, the information sought by the appellants through the letter of District Inspector of Schools dated 21st Sept. , 1992 and of the Secretary of the Board of the same date, are such, which are available with respondents and the other from respondents earlier letter dated 6th August, 1992 where qualification of all the teachers are mentioned and from other inspection reports of the appellants.
28178 of 1995.
Thereafter, again on refusal of the High Court, the management of the said Madrasah moved this Court whereupon this Court granted permission for the said examination held in 1987 and 1989.
Considering the fact that three additional teachers and one additional number teaching staff had already been approved for the Junior High Madrasah, i.e., classes V to XIII the ticket staff pattern for the upgraded High Madrasah became fifteen teaching and four number teaching staff.
The said application, amongst others, was disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 29.8.95.
Thereafter, the said Madrasah has been regularly sending up its candidates since 1990 onwards.
For establishing either Junior or High Madrasah which companysists of four levels of classes, namely, class V to VIII as well as High Madrasah which have two levels, namely, classes IX X, the sanction of the State Govt.
FMAT No.
These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 9th February, 1994 and 29th August 1995 by which the High Court directed the appellant authorities to grant approval to the teaching and number teaching staff including the Head Master Mohd.
The Bishalaxmipur Pune Shah Mastania Junior High Madrasah for short said Madrasah was recognised by the Board with effect from 1st January, 1971 as Junior High Madrasah Classes V to Vii .
Subsequently, the appellants made an application dated 19th July, 1994 for the modification and for review of the order dated 9th February, 1994.
Three appeals were preferred against the said judgment dated 12.1.94 of the learned single Judge FMAT No.
337 of 1994.
As there was numberHigh Madrasah within a radius of 30 miles, i.e., 48 kms.,
It is either on account of factionalism within the management, each faction when in power trying to pour in his men companytrary to the numberms fixed or sometimes on account of authorities deliberately pulling the strings of the management for strafing reasons delaying the legitimate companyferment of rights of the teachers, staff or the institution.
It was also directed that the Head Master Shri Nurudding Mallick would be entitled to get his salary in the pay scale of Head Master with effect from 1.1.80.
The said order dated 11.10.91 was modified on 7.7.92 so as to direct that the recognition should be with effect from 1980.
As its enrolment increased in all classed, three additional posts of teachers were sanctioned to it, raising the total sanctioned strength of teaching staff to nine including Head Master and three number teaching staff including one clerk.
839 of 1986.
Similar is the position of the subsequent report of the District Inspector of Schools.
Since this was number a report by the District Inspector of Schools as ordered earlier by the Court, fresh orders were passed on 18.12.92 and 23.12.92 for the District Inspector of Schools himself to submit the report.
Further, so far as the facts, as aforesaid, submitted by learned companynsel for the respondents were only to show the mala fide of the appellants is number giving recognition as high Madrasah to the respondents institution for which respondents have initiated various proceedings and ultimately obtained the said orders.
Since the appellants did number pass any order of recognition, the appellants moved initially the companytempt proceedings, which was rejected by the High Court, and ultimately this Court passed the following order Special leave is granted.
Accordingly, the appeal is treated as on the days list and both the appeal and the application are disposed of as above.
The State authorities were given liberty to file a proper application within two weeks.
Opening of additional class units were approved from time to time and by 1981 posts of three additional teachers and one additional number teaching staff had been sanctioned.
The Trial Judge directed the secretary of the Madrasah Board to accord approval of the election of members of the category of guardians and also directed the District Inspector of Schools to forward a companyy of the report to the said Board for giving its approval in favour of the said 31 persons 24 teachers and 7 number teaching staff preferably within one month from forwarding of the report.
1st January 1971 with classes from V to VIII.
We have heard the appeal.
The case set up by the appellants is that the staff pattern as well as the required qualifications of teaching and number teaching staff of Madrasahs are prescribed from time to time.
12099 of 1992, praying for orders directing the authorities to approve the said list of 31 staff.
On 25.11.92, such report was submitted by the Assistant Inspector of Schools under directions of the District Inspector of Schools, which disclosed that many of the teaching staff did number have the requisite qualifications.
Strangely the hearing of the stay application was in fact treated as the hearing of the main appeal at the instance of a party who was number aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench directed the respondents in the Writ Petition viz.,
As a result, the Junior High Madrasah had the approval for a total of nine teaching including Head Master and three number teaching staff.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, an order was made directing the District Inspector of Schools to submit a report.
But numberorder granting its such recognition was issued by the authority.
The appellants are State of West Bengal, the President and the Secretary of West Bengal Madrasah Education Board, renamed as West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education.
The circulars also lay down companyditions under which a Madrasah may be permitted to open additional class units or sections.
from that place, the then management applied for its upgradation to a X class High Madrasah with effect from 1.1.1976 leading to inspection of the said Madarsah by the authorities companycerned on 17.9.1976 and 11.7.1980 who, in turn, recommended for its recognition as a High Madrasah.
These orders have since been companyplied with and the Madrasah has been recognised as a High Madrasah with effect from 1980.
Nuruddin Mallick in the respective posts held by them in a Madrasah known as Bishalaxmipur Pune Saha Mastania Junior High Madrasah.
On 6.1.93 a fresh report was submitted by the District Inspector of Schools from which also it appears that the Madrasah was number entitled to approval for 31 teaching and number teaching staff as applied for.
Since in terms of the order dated 9th February, 1994, the companycerned authorities did number issue any order of approval of the teaching and number teaching staff of the said Madrasah a companytempt proceeding was drawn against the appellants.
On 1st July, 1994 the Division Bench in the said proceeding directed to accord provisional approval to the teachers companycerned by Tuesday next, subject to further orders without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties.
As the said Madrasah was maintaining class X since 1976, it was all along granted special permission by the Madrasah Education Board form 1976 to 1980 for sending its students as regular candidates for High Madrasah final examination.
The said Madrasah opened classes IX X without any approval sanction for the same.
The issue involved in the present appeal arises out of the facts subsequent to the recognition of the said madrasah as a High Madrasah.
The present case is one of such unfortunate tug of war between the Management of an Educational Institution and the statutory authorities.
appellants herein to companysider the case of the Madrasah for upgradation to High Madrasah.
337 of 1994 by Shri Nuruddin Mallick Ors.
In 1981, the writ petitions being C.R. No.
An application for stay filed on 3.2.94 in FMAT 337 of 1994 being the appeal filed by Shri Nuruddin Mallick came up for hearing on 9.2.94 and the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to pass and order directing the Board to approve the services of the teachers and number teaching staff, as directed by the learned single Judge, within a period of one month and further directed release of all salaries within a period of two months from the date of submission of the grant in aid form to the authority companycerned.
Accordingly, the appeal is treated as on days list and both the appeal and the application are disposed of as above.
Appeal No.
Nuruddin Mullick for an order directing the authorities to recognise the said Madrasah as a High Madrasah i.e.Classes V to X .
Moreover, the companytentions of the State authorities against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.1.94 were number companysidered and their appeal remained pending without any decision.
Further, the submission is that the report of the Assistant Inspector of schools dated 25th November, 1992 on which reliance was placed by the learned Trial Judge, reveals that the teachers do number possess the requisite qualifications.
Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in FMAT No.
The State authorites thereupon issued orders for provisional approval and filed an application for recalling the order dated 9.2.94.
Education is the foundation of the prosperity of any companyntry, it shapes its future by inculcating discipline, culture and the spirit into the youth.
In these writ petitions orders were made from time to time granting permissions for the students of class X to appear in the school final examinations.
So far as the approval of 31 teachers and number teaching staff, as desired by respondent Madrasah through its letter dated 6th August, 1992, can only be companysidered by the companypetent authority in accordance with the prescribed rules and on fulfillment of the criteria as laid down under the rules or companycerned circulars.
398 of 1994 for number compliance thereof.
Then the Division Bench on 19th November, 1986 directed the appellants to companysider the case of recognition of High Madrasah within three months in the light of the recommendations in the years 1980, 1984 and 1986.
14594 W of 1981 were filed by Mohd.
However, as the authority did number companysider the case of upgradation of the said Madrasah the management moved the High Court of Calcutta whereupon it, inter alia, directed for keeping one quota vacant as was allotted to the said Board by the State Government for the year 1980 81 till the question of recognition as High Madrasah is companysidered by the authority.
West Bengal Madrasah Board is necessary.
The above order was followed by a companytempt application being C.R.No.
Leave granted.
386 of 1994 by added respondents being teachers who claimed to have worked but whose names had number been included in the list of 31 and iii.
799 of 1994 on behalf of the State.
In the present appeals, we are number companycerned with the aforesaid appeal No.
The further case is that the appellants in FMAT No.
It was faintly submitted that the delay is deliberately caused, as was caused in the case of recognition of the said institution as High Madrasah with mala fide.
This appeal is filed against the order of the High Court dated 7.12.1988 by which it refused to take any action against the respondent for number companyplying with the writ issued by the High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
The submission by learned senior companynsel for the respondents Ms. Indira Jaisingh, is that the appellant authorities are deliberately delaying to give recognition to the teaching and number teaching staff through they have all the required materials with them.
Thereafter, provisional approval was given to 16 teaching and 3 number teaching staff.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the Bishalaxmipur Pune Shah Mostania Junior High Madrasah was recognised by the West Bengal Madrasah Education Board hereinafter referred to as Board w.e.f.
There were companytempt proceedings following the order dated 19.10.91 was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which directed the authorities to grant recognition to the said Madrasah as a High Madrasah.
2391 W of 1981 was finally disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 19.11.1986.
337 of 1994 were number aggrieved parties but at their instance the Division Bench was pleased to affirm the order of the learned Single Judge.
In terms of the prescribed rules, a High Madrasah companysisting of six class units i.e.classes V to X with one class at each level is entitled to appoint twelve teaching including Head Master and three number teaching staff.
The companyplaint of Mr. A.K. Sen learned companynsel for the appellants is that the order dated 19.11.86 passed by the High Court which had become final had number been companyplied with by the respondents.
386 of 1994.
If the very foundation of education is involved in long drawn out litigation, the very hope and aspiration of the youth for the future is lost.
Without waiting for the disposal of the application for approval, a writ petition was moved by Shri Nuruddin Mullick on 11.11.92, being C.O.No.
The companytempt application was disposed of by an order dated 1.7.94 wherein it was directed that the approval should be issued provisionally without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties and subject to further orders of the Court.
2391 W of 1981 and C.R.No.
The High Court, on remand, directed the appellants to grant recognition within a period of two months, failing which the companytemners should appear on 20th December, 1991 for passing necessary orders for imprisonment and fine.
Thereafter, the appellants granted provisional recognition to the respondents for two years by order dated 10th December, 1991.
