STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus ALPANA ROY AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 26-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
v. 
ALPANA ROY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDG.P. MATHUR,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Regularization of services of a teacher-Filing of writ petition by the 
C incumbent-Single Judge of the High Court directing the Education Board/ 
Authorities to examine genuineness of the claim-Report submitted by the 
Board indicating that the appointment, as claimed by the incumbent, was in 
gross violation of the statutory rules-Single Judge directing the Board to 
regularize the service of the incumbent-Affirmed by the Division Bench of 
D the High Court-On appeal, Held: Single Judge set aside the report even 
without indicating any reasons-Though approving authority owes 
responsibility to take into account relevant governing statutes before 
according its approval to appointment, but the High Court has proceeded 
as if approval is an empty formality-Oranting of such approval also entails 
certain financial implications-High Court erred in not examining the basic 
E issues involved in the case-In the absence of approval of the designated 
authority for regularization of services of the incumbent, directions of the 
High Court for regularization of her services not maintainable. 
Judgment-Absence of reasons-Implication of-Discussed. 
F 
Respondent No. 1, working as teacher in a School, filed a Writ Petition 
before the Calcutta High Court for directions to the West Bengal Board of 
Primary Education for regularization of her services. Single Judge of the 
High Court directed the Board to examine the genuineness of the claim of 
the petitioner that she was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School. 
G The Board submitted a report stating that the appointment of the petitioner 
was in gross violation of the statutory rules, orders and procedure for 
appointment of teachers. The report of the Board was totally brushed aside by 
the High Court directing the Chairman, District Primary School Council to 
re-consider the case of regularization of services of the petitioner in the light 
of the fact that she had been working for a long time. Appellant/State 
II 
482 
STATE OF WESTBENGALv. ALPANAROY 
483 
authorities challenged the order of Single Judge of the High Court. By the A 
impugned order, Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Appellant-State/authorities contended that the Board found that the 
document purported to be the order of appointment is in fact manipulated/ 
fabricated document; that no resolution of the Managing Committee was B 
produced in confirmation of the proposed appointment; that the findings 
recorded by the Board were set aside by the Single Judge of the High Court 
without indicating any reason thereto; that the Rules governing the field 
clearly provide that the appointing authority is the Board; and that after having 
accepted the position that without obtaining approval of the Board no C 
appointment could be made, the question of regularization of services of the 
incumbent does not arise. 
Respondent-writ petitioner contended that she has rendered service for 
nearly quarter of a century without any salary; that she had challenged the 
correctness of the findings of the Board regarding manipulation of the order D 
of appointment, but the High Court did not consider that aspect. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench have 
overlooked the basic features of the case and have proceeded to grant relief E 
to the writ petitioner. The Board, on examination of all relevant documents, 
came to hold that the document which was claimed to be the order of 
appointment was a fabricated one. Further, no resolution of the Managing 
Committee was produced. The Single Judge set aside the report even without 
indicating any reasons and directed that approval to writ petitioner's 
appointment should be accorded. !486-F, G) 
F 
1.2. It is the function of the authority/body granting approval to examine 
whether in a particular case, approval is to be accorded. The approving 
authority's function is not formal one. It has a duty to decide whether approval 
is to be accorded, taking into account governing statutes. The High Court G 
has proceeded as if approval is an empty formality. On according of the 
approval certain financial implications of the State come into operation. 
Without pointing out as to how the decision of the Board was wrong, the High 
Court should not have set

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.