At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY
For the Appearing Parties: M.M. Verma, Md. Aqib Badr, Syed Mansur Ali, Jahar Lal De, Advocates.
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.
1. This appeal is by one of the respondents of the related writ application being W.P. 6046(W) of 2015.
2. The writ petition was filed by the Headmaster and Secretary of Managing Committee of a school against the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) alleging violation of principles of natural justice while haring complaints made against them.
3. The writ court in the impugned judgment and order passed certain directions to be followed by the said District Inspector for the hearing in respect of the complaints against the writ petitioners and the order which had already been passed by the said District Inspector on December 9, 2014 in respect of the said complaints was directed to be kept in abeyance.
4. The grievance of the appellant is, as the order of the district inspector dated December 9, 2014 has been stayed (Sic.) a part of the said order of the District Inspector dated December 9, 2014 to pay the appellant his legitimately claimed arrear and increments has also been stayed. Ground Nos. XVII and XVIII of the memorandum of appeal are the two relevant grounds taken by the appellant in this appeal. On perusal of other grounds taken in the appeal it is found that those are wholly meritless and those grounds were not pressed by the appellant.
5. While making the above submission as to payment of arrear salary and increments the appellant has referred to page 258 of the Paper-Book (Volume-II) to submit that he has post graduate qualification in English and it has been submitted from the bar that his arrear pay and increments have to be calculated on the basis of his post graduate qualification.
The document at page 258 of the Paper-Book (Volume-II) raises a serious doubt in the mind of this court and, therefore, the school and the said District Inspector was directed to explain the situation by filing reports. Such reports have been filed and have been kept on record.
Reason for such doubt was that some handwriting was there in the computer generated document (in page 258 as stated above) where there is no scope for any handwriting.
The school filed a report stating, inter alia, that the approval qualification of the appellant was pass graduation and not post graduation.
The said District Inspector filed two reports dated January 28, 2020 and February 10, 2020. The relevant parts of the reports are as follows:
" 28.01.2020: The document occurring page no 258 of volume 2 of the paper book, Annexure P-21 is not correct and never generated. The original profile copy is attached herewith. At the time of making online profile in the IOSMS server, the school authority submitted the profile online from school login for online salary of teaching and non-teaching staff. The school authority cannot make any change of the Primary Details of employee, except the basic pay. The school authority can change the basic pay when any increment is allowed in favour of the employees by the school authority.
10.02.2020: The school uploaded the profile of Neshat Ahmed Siddiqui, Assistant Teacher, M.L. Jubilee Institution (H.S.) in the Approved Qualification filed of IOSMS portal as "Post Graduate" on 11-02-2014 at 00:27:31.235092 from Head of the Institution login. At the material point of time for smooth and quick disposal of salary of huge number of teaching and non teaching staff, this office gave online approval without details checking. At the time of special checking, this office found that the Approved Qualification of Neshat Ahmed Siddiqui, Assistant Teacher, M.L. Jubilee Institution (H.S.) was recorded as "Post Graduate" which was wrong. His actual approved qualification was "Pass Graduate". So this wrong entry of qualification was rectified as "Pass Graduate". In the IOSMS profile on 07.12.2018 at 14:25:43. 436454 from DDO end without any intimation from school end. The information regarding date and time of uploading and updating qualification details has been received from the office of National Informatics Center (NIC)."
These reports have not been challenged or contested by the appellant. The reports speak for themselves.
6. Error in recording qualification different from approved qualifications of teacher cannot and does not create any right in favour of the teacher. The ministerial error neither creates any right nor extinguishes the same. The error cannot be allowed to be perpetuated nor any benefit can be extended to a person. The error amenable to be rectified and/or corrected neither abridges the right nor curtails the same. The error rectified subsequently is within the realm of an administrative dispensation and cannot be construed as the revision or review of the administrative decision.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter we do not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the writ court dated August 29, 2018 except the observation that if the appellant has any arrear or increments due in accordance with this approval (of service) qualification that may be paid to the appellant by the appropriate authority if the appellant is not otherwise disentitled to the same after complying with the directions of the writ court given in its judgment and order dated August 29, 2018 in W.P. 6046 (W) of 2015.
8. Before parting with the matter it is necessary to mention that the hearing of the matter was concluded on March 5, 2020 when the matter was taken up twice; in the first half and again at 3 p.m. in the presence of the learned Advocates for the appellant and the appearing respondents.
Suddenly, on or about May 11, 2020 the appellant filed one written notes of argument through e-filing (as the court was functioning through e-filing and hearing online due to COVID-19 pandemic) contending, inter alia, that hard copies of the reports were not given to the appellant before or during the hearing. We completely fail to understand when the reports were against the appellant, be it a hard copy or soft copy, what prevented the appellant from filing the objection to the said reports or making a prayer to that effect. No such thing was done. The copies which were filed in the Court by the District Inspe
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ctor and the copy of the report of the school were handed over to the appellant as soon as those were filed. All the reports filed by the District Inspector and the school were originally signed. Such endeavour of the appellant to make a wholly baseless and incorrect statement in his written notes of argument filed on or about May 11, 2020 is treated as wholly mala fide by making flimsy allegation. We have already noted that the appellant did not hesitate to create a document which contains handwriting on a computer generated sheet which is at page 258 of the Paper Book (Volume-II). 9. The appeal and the application being CAN 8941 of 2018 is disposed of. I agree.