Goutami Mondal v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

26.04 Ct. No.17 WPA 2983 of 2022 Goutami Mondal Vs.

The State of W. B. & Ors.

g.b.

Mr. S. P. Pahari .......For the Petitioner Ms. Usha Maity Mr. Sakya Maity ......For the School Authority By my order dated 17.03.2022 I directed the school to regularize the child care leave of the petitioner. Said order dated 17.03.2022 is recalled after seeing the report of the District Inspector of Schools which has been produced before me today. The report is dated 19.04.2022. I also directed by my order dated 21.04.2022 again to regularize the child care leave of the petitioner in course of that week and I also made it clear that if that was not done, a suo motu contempt rule would be issued against the President and Headmaster of the said school which is also recalled.

The report filed by the D. I. of Schools is kept on record.

From the said report I find that the petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by the State for taking child care leave (C. C. L.). The School Managing Committee cannot always grant C. C. L. to a

petitioner and it appears that in 2015 the petitioner took 15 days C. C. L. Then again 16 days C. C. L. in 2015 and then again 18 days C. C. L. in 2015. Generally C. C. L. is given not more than three spells in a calendar year.

In 2016 the petitioner obtained 15 days C. C. L. In 2018 she obtained 16 days C. C. L. This time she prayed for 45 days C. C. L. but the Managing Committee sanctioned 16 days C. C. L. In the report of the D. I. it has been specified how many teachers of the school except the petitioner took C. C. L. in 2017 and the petitioner's C. C. L. is highest in number. Today it has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that last time she applied for 45 days C. C. L. for the purpose of her daughter's Higher Secondary Examination and then some Entrance Examination. The dispute arose for not granting this C. C. L. for the whole period as was claimed by the petitioner and I do not find any reasonableness or justification in claiming 45 days C. C. L. for her daughter's Higher Secondary Examination or then some Entrance Examination. While taking care of her own daughter, the teacher being the petitioner should also take care about the interest of the school meaning thereby the interest of the students therein.

Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ

application and the writ application is dismissed. No costs.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)