RAJESH KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
W.P.A. No. 3813 of 2025
Rajesh Kumar Singh
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Md. Galib,
Mr. Dilip Kumar Shyamal.
… for the petitioner
Mr. tarun Kumar Das,
… for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5
Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee,
Mr. Piyas Choudhury.
… for the State
Heard on: 31.08.2026
Judgment on: 12.11.2026
Uploaded on: 12.11.2026
1) The writ petitioner is an unapproved teacher, appointed and
working in a recognised, non-government, DA getting school,
whose prayer for approval of service has been rejected by the
respondent/ District Inspector of Schools (Secondary
Education) Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as “the DI”], vide an

2

order dated 13.9.2024. the petitioner has challenged the said
order of the DI dated 13.9.2024 in the present writ petition and
has prayed for the relief that the order of the DI as above may
be set aside and necessary direction be issued for approval of
service of the writ petitioner.

2) The brief factual background relevant for this case is that the
petitioner was appointed by the school managing committee
vide the appointment letter dated 07.12.2012, as an assistant
teacher in the subject Book Keeping. On the following day that
is on 08.12.2012 a fresh appointment letter was issued to him
modifying the earlier one, that he is appointed for the subject
Book Keeping/Work Education and Physical Education. The
petitioner had joined on and from 12.12.2012. From the date of
his joining, he has been serving continuously and
uninterruptedly in the said school, maintaining an unblemished
service record.


3) In 2016, after confirmation of his service by the school
authority, the petitioner’s prayer for approval in service was
placed before the respondent/DI. The DI rejected the
petitioner’s prayer as above, at that point of time due to the fact
that the petitioner lacked requisite qualification and training to
be approved as a teacher in Physical Education subject. Be it
mentioned that the petitioner was appointed in the school with
Graduate qualification, with B.Com Pass Degree. Later, in the
academic session 2020-21, the petitioner underwent B.P.Ed
Degree course at an University at Allahabad. His final results
were declared on 27.9.2021. Since being duly qualified the
petitioner obtained B.P.Ed Degree.

3

4)
Subsequently, at the intervention and pursuant to an order of
this Court the respondent/DI has again considered the
petitioner’s prayer for approval and resultantly the impugned
order dated 13.9.2024 was passed by the said respondent,
rejecting the petitioner’s prayer as above for the second time.
Hence, this writ petition.

5)
According to Mr. Md. Galib, learned advocate for the petitioner,
the said impugned order has been passed by the said
respondent only mechanically and without application of mind.
He has challenged all the stated in the said impugned order as
untenable and not maintainable.

6) He submits further that on the contrary, the petitioner having
duly obtained the requisite qualification and in view of the
provision in the Government Notification No. 1691-SE(S)/4A-
53/2001 dated 20.9.2001 [herein after referred to as
“No.1691”], is entitled for being approved in service, in the
permanent sanctioned post, against which he has been
proposed by the school authority to be approved and
regularised. It is mentioned that from amongst the two
sanctioned posts of assistant teachers in the subject Book
Keeping/Work Education and Physical Education in the school,
one has become vacant due to retirement of the assistant
teacher namely, Sri Ashoke Kumar Mitra. That since then the
said post is lying vacant. That the school authority has
proposed approval of the writ petitioner as against the said
post, by virtue of the provisions under the said memo No. 1691.

7) Mr. Md. Galib, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has
submitted that the respondent has already approved service of

4

the other assistant teacher with B.Com qualification, in another
post in the subject Book Keeping/Work Education and Physical
Education, in school. Therefore, according to him, there is no
scope for the respondent to treat the present petitioner
differently. He says that the legal principles of estoppel and res
judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before
administrative authorities. In this regard he has referred to a 3
Judges’ Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Hope
Plantation Limited versus Taluk Land Board, Peermade
and Another reported at (1999) 5 SCC 590 , where the Court
has upheld the said principles stating about applicability of
those as being based on public policy and justice.

8) The affidavit-in-opposition has been reaffirmed and submitted
in Court by the respondent State, represented by Ms. Suchitra
Sinha Chatterjee, learned advocate. Its first contention in favour
and support of the said impugned order is that the petitioner’s
appointment as assistant teacher for the subject Book
Keeping/Work Education and Physical Education vide the
second appointment letter dated 08.12.2012 is faulty, in so far
as the same has been issued without cancelling the former
appointment letter dated 07.12.2012, issued to him. That two
appointment letters cannot subsist together. And that according
to the first appointment letter, the petitioner was appointed as a
teacher in subject Book Keeping, whereas there is no subject as
such in normal section of the school. According to the State the
second appointment letter dated 08.12.2012 is after thought,
motivated and mala fide. The State has also contended that on
the date of appointment the petitioner was admittedly not a
proper qualified person, hence there remains no question for
application in his case in any manner of the provision under

5

G.O.No. 1691. It has further stated that proper selection
procedure was not followed to induct the petitioner in service.
Hence, according to the State respondent, there is no
requirement or scope for interference with the impugned order
of the respondent/DI dated 13.9.2024, as the same is based on
lawful and justified grounds.

9)
The school authority has also filed affidavit in opposition and
supported the writ petitioner’s case.

10) It appears that the petitioner’s prayer for approval of his service
is principally based on the provisions enumerated in the
G.O.No. 1691. Admittedly the writ petitioner has obtained
B.P.Ed Degree in the year 2021, date of his final results being
27.9.2021. hence, it is an admitted fact in this case that since
after qualifying with the B.P.Ed Degree, the writ petitioner had
fulfilled shortcomings, if any, in qualification to be appointed as
an assistant teacher in Work Education and Physical Education
subject.

11) It is necessary in this regard to look into the provision of
G.O.No.1691. The same is with regard to the subject matter –
“Filling up of the Vacant Posts within the Govt sanctioned
strength of the Schools in receipt of DA from the Government”.
The said notification is specifically meant for the unapproved
teachers working in a DA getting school, making provision for
their absorption in permanent sanctioned post, fallen vacant.
The notification explicitly addresses the regularization and
absorption of qualified teachers who were working beyond the
government-sanctioned strength in Dearness Allowance (D.A.)

6

getting schools. Relevant provision of the same may be quoted
below:
Govt. in the |Education Department has since considered the
matter at length and decides to permit the authorities of such
D.A. getting schools to fill up the vacant post within the
sanctioned strength by placing properly qualified teachers
already working in the school for the Secondary/Higher
Secondary Section but not in receipt of D.A. from the Govt. on
fulfilment of the following conditions:-
(1) Such teachers working beyond the sanctioned strength
should be placed whenever any vacancy arises within the
sanctioned strength in strict adherence to the norms of the staff
pattern in case of Normal Section (V to X). In case of H.S.
Section only those teachers who possess Hons./Master Degree
in the subjects in which the vacancy arises should be
considered.
(2) Before placement it is to be confirmed that the teachers to be
placed within the sanctioned strength had minimum
qualification and was within the prescribed age limit at the time
of initial appointment.
(3)The managing committee whenever a vacancy arises will
approach the concerned D.I. of Schools for permission order,
along with a copy of resolution resolving the placement of
concerned teacher along with academic certificates of the
incumbent.
It there is more than one teacher of the same academic
qualification preference should be given to the senior most.
In case of filling up the post of H.M./A.H.M. against sanctioned
post proper regard should be given to academic qualification
and experience as laid down in Govt. orders.

7

This order will take effect immediately and any
order/Guidelines issued either by the Department of School
Education of by the Director of School Education will stand
void.
12) The key provisions of this Government Order (G.O.) include:
i. Vacancy Absorption: Duly qualified teachers already
working in a D.A. getting school beyond the sanctioned
limit are permitted to be placed against fresh vacancies
that arise within the sanctioned strength.
ii. Higher Secondary Section Preference : When vacancies
arise in the Higher Secondary (HS) section, preference
must be given to existing teachers who possess an
Honours or Master's degree in the specific subject where
the vacancy exists. and

iii. Cut-off for Eligibility : The minimum educational
qualifications and the prescribed age limits of the teacher
are to be evaluated with reference to the time of their
initial appointment rather than the date of absorption.

13) The writ petitioner though accepts that at the time of entering
into service he did not have B.P.Ed Degree, but says that that in
2021, he has acquired requite qualification and since thereafter
there is no shortfall as regards his qualification, for him to be
absorbed in a sanctioned vacant post of the subject concerned.
The State has countered this plea of the petitioner on the
ground that qualification acquired later would not conform with
the requite criteria as prescribed in the notification No. 1691 for
him to be accommodated in a sanctioned post in the school,
which falls vacant due to retirement of an approved teacher in
the subject. In careful consideration of the provisions in the
said notification, this Court finds that a later qualification does

8

not necessarily disqualify the teacher from consideration under
the G.O.No.1691. Neither the later qualification by itself, is the
source of entitlement of him. According to the Court, the
petitioner’s entitlement should depend on availability of vacancy
on the date of his attaining the requisite qualification, subject to
the decision of the school managing committee, in consideration
of the requirement of teacher in the said vacant post and his
past performance, to place him in the said vacant post. Though
the notification speaks about that the person who has been
appointed and working in the school as an additional hand and
beyond sanctioned strength of assistant teachers in the subject,
should possess the requisite minimum educational qualification
and age at the time of his initial appointment, the Court finds
that in absence of any specific bar being provided in the said
notification to accommodate a teacher, who was not duly
qualified at the time of his initial appointment but acquired the
same at a later stage, though at a time when the post was not
filled up, and thus duly made himself qualified for the post, the
benefit under the said notification should be withheld in case of
such an assistant teacher, like the case of the petitioner, in the
instant writ petition.

14) The aforesaid objection of the State respondent, though founded
upon the fact that the petitioner did not possess the B.P.Ed.
qualification on the date of his initial appointment, cannot be
accepted as conclusive of the issue in the manner suggested.
The material consideration is whether the subsequent
acquisition of the requisite qualification, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, altogether forecloses the
petitioner's consideration for absorption against a sanctioned
vacancy under G.O. No. 1691. The said Government Order is

9

intended to provide a mechanism for accommodating eligible
teachers already working beyond the sanctioned strength
against vacancies subsequently arising within such strength.
Its provisions must, therefore, be construed in the context of
that object, without either diluting an express eligibility
condition or introducing a disqualification which the Order does
not expressly prescribe. The stipulation concerning the
minimum qualification at the time of initial appointment
undoubtedly requires due consideration; nevertheless, the
question whether a teacher who was initially appointed without
the requisite subject-specific qualification, but subsequently
acquired the same while continuing in service and before the
relevant sanctioned vacancy was filled up, can ever be
considered for absorption must be examined in the light of the
precise language and object of the said government order. In the
present case, the petitioner acquired his B.P.Ed. qualification
on declaration of the final result on 27.9.2021, and it is the
admitted position that the vacancy against which his absorption
is proposed, has arisen within the sanctioned strength. The
subsequent acquisition of qualification cannot, by itself, create
an indefeasible right to approval; equally, it cannot, without a
proper examination of the applicable conditions, be treated as
an absolute bar to consideration.

15) The relevant factors would include the existence and nature of
the sanctioned vacancy, the petitioner's suitability for the post,
the applicable staff pattern, and the decision of the competent
school authority in accordance with law. Such an approach
preserves the requirement of qualification while avoiding the
mechanical rejection of a claim solely on the ground that the
requisite qualification was acquired after initial appointment. It

10

is not a case of the respondent that vacancy did not exist till the
time the petitioner obtained a B.P.Ed Degree in 2021. Therefore,
in case of the present petitioner, he stood duly qualified in
terms of the G.O.No. 1691, on the date of his acquiring such
qualification. In such view of the facts, rejection of the
recommendation of the school authority to place the petitioner
as against the sanctioned vacant post in the subject, by the
authority, appears to be only mechanical rejection without
conforming with the object of the said government notification.
Rather the writ petitioner, after obtaining the B.P.Ed Degree
stands duly qualified, given his continuous service in the school
from the date of his joining there, in terms of the said
notification, to be accommodated and approved in the sanction
post, which has fallen vacant due to retirement of the other
approved subject teacher.

16)
The other objections raised by the State respondent do not
warrant a different conclusion. The contention that the
appointment letter dated 8.12.2012 is invalid merely because
the earlier appointment letter dated 7.12.2012 was not
separately cancelled does not, by itself, establish that the
subsequent letter is a nullity. The two documents must be read
together in their factual and chronological setting, particularly
because the later document was issued on the very next day
and purported to modify the subjects in which the petitioner
was appointed. Whether the second letter was intended to
supersede or modify the first is a matter to be determined from
the documents and the contemporaneous records of the school;
the mere existence of two letters does not conclusively establish
that both were intended to operate independently or that the
later one was necessarily a fraudulent or mala fide document.

11

The further contention that the appointment was motivated or
made in bad faith likewise requires support from relevant
material and cannot be sustained merely by assertion. As
regards the alleged absence of a proper selection procedure, the
respondent must identify the applicable requirement and
demonstrate how the appointment in question contravened it; a
bare allegation, without examination of the relevant rules and
records, cannot substitute for such an inquiry. The fact that the
petitioner has continued in service since December 2012, that
the school authority supports his claim, and that another
teacher with a B.Com. qualification has reportedly been
approved against a comparable post are relevant circumstances
which require due consideration. To the extent that the
respondent has rejected the claim by treating the subsequent
acquisition of qualification, the existence of the two
appointment letters, or the alleged procedural irregularity as
self-sufficient grounds without the requisite examination, such
reasoning cannot be sustained.

17) On the basis of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that
the impugned order of the respondent/DI is not to be sustained
and the instant writ petition should succeed.

18)
Hence, the writ petition No. WPA 3813 of 2025 stands allowed
with the following directions:
i. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools
(Secondary Education) Kolkata dated 13.9.2024, is
hereby set aside;
ii. The writ petitioner is eligible for being approved in the
sanctioned vacant post in the school, in the concerned

12

subject, with effect from the date of his being qualified
with the B.P.Ed Degree;
iii. Hence, the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary
Education) Kolkata, shall pass an order in this regard, by
approving service of the writ petitioner in the sanctioned
vacant post of an assistant teacher in the concerned
subject, with effect from the date of his being qualified
with the B.P.Ed Degree.
iv. Such an order should be passed within a period of 4
weeks from the date of communication of this judgment;
v. Let it be mentioned that the necessary pay fixation should
be given effect to for the petitioner immediately thereafter
and arrear salary should be disbursed to him within a
period of 3 months from the date of communication of
this judgment.

19)
Writ petition No. WPA 3813 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.


20) Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for,
shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)