Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rehena Khatoon vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 September, 2011
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
19 W.P. No. 10200 (W) of 2011
20.09.2011
pg.
Rehena Khatoon Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Susanta Kumar Mukherjee
Mr. K.M. Hossain
Ms. Sonali Dhar
... For the petitioner
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Ms. Tanuja Basak
... For the respondent nos. 9 & 10
Mr. Anirban Dutta ... For the State The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, Birbhum, dated 7th April, 2011. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to an order of this Court dated 30th June, 2009, passed in W.P. No. 5808 (W) of 2009 (Rahena Khatun Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The said order of this Court dated 30th June, 2009, was passed at the instance of the writ petitioner herein, who was also the writ petitioner in the earlier writ proceeding. The relevant portion of the said order of this Court is quoted hereinbelow:
"I find from the order that though it has been specifically recorded that Amena Khatun is unaware of the fact that how her name has been empanelled in the Kandha Primary School, yet the respondent no. 2 has reached a finding that Amena Khatun applied for 2 the post of additional Para teacher in Kandha Primary School. Moreover, though it has been recorded in the penultimate paragraph of the order that it has been passed "observing the documents", those documents have not been specifically referred to. In my view, a duty is cast on the authority to refer to the documents specifically on the basis of which an order is passed which in the instant case has not been done. It is also a necessity for the sake of transparency. Hence, the order is perverse.
Therefore, for the reasons as aforesaid, the order contained in the Memo dated 30th June, 2008 cannot be sustained and is, thus, set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The District Project Officer, Sarba Sikha Mission, Birbhum, respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the order dated 5th May, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 26743 (W) of 2006."
In the impugned order of the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, Birbhum, dated 7th April, 2011, it appears that the said authority took into consideration the specific directions given by this Court in the order dated 30th June, 2009. The impugned order also appears to be supported with cogent reasons. The District Project Officer concluded his order dated 7th April, 2011, by stating that the two panels which were sent by the concerned Circle Project Coordinator for two separate primary schools and which were approved by his office, was justified. The impugned order dated 7th April, 2011, thus, appears to have been passed by the concerned District Project Officer 3 in conformity with the specific directions given by this Court in the order dated 30th June, 2009, passed in W.P. No. 5808 (W) of 2009.
In a recent judgment rendered by this Court in Amarendranath Mandal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 Calcutta 56, it has been held in paragraph 4 of the report as follows:
"4. The writ Court ought not to transpose itself as an appellate authority when a particular authority has performed its obligation to abide by the specific directions given by this Court and rendered a decision in the matter supported with cogent reasons. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked in such cases, unless of course, the decision so rendered by the concerned authority is palpably wrong or is arbitrary or perverse or smacks of malafide motive or has been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court."
In the absence of the exceptions as laid down in the judgment referred hereinabove, no case has been made out by the writ petitioner for interference of this Court in respect of the impugned order.
For reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied 4 for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)