Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Sirajuddin vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 May, 2018
Author: Asha Arora
Bench: Asha Arora
1
02.05.2018
62.ML. AJ.
C.A.N. 2594 of 2016
with
C.A.N. 2605 of 2016
in
M.A.T. 413 of 2016
Md. Sirajuddin
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jagabandhu Mondal,
Ms. Amrita Chail.
.....for the appellant.
Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh.
.....for the State.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 28th November, 2011
passed by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing W.P. 27688 (W) of 2006 firstly
on the ground of delay and secondly on the ground that no legal right of the writ
petitioner stood infringed by reason of any action of the respondents.
The appeal is barred by 1534 days' delay. The application for condonation of delay is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate for the State and an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed wherein it is pleaded that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay.
While considering the issue of condonation of delay, we have looked into the order under challenge. It appears that the writ petition was presented by the appellant essentially seeking a direction on the respondents to approve his appointment with effect from 1983. The appellant claims himself to be an organizer teacher. The learned Judge was of the view that although the appellant's appointment had not been approved, he waited till 2006 to present the writ petition when he was 58 years old. Not only that, on the day the writ petition was being considered, he had become a senior citizen. That apart, the report of the District Level Inspection Team leading to recognition of the school in question not having included the name of the appellant as a teacher, he was not entitled to any relief. 2
Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Judge failed to notice that the appellant had previously instituted a writ petition [C.R. 2876 (W) of 1984] wherein an order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 29th July, 1991 seeking a report from the relevant District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) by 19th August, 1991 regarding the claim of the appellant as well as functioning of the school indicating its strength of teaching and non-teaching staff, students and the present management. According to him, it was not therefore a case of lack of diligence on the part of the appellant to enforce his right.
In our view, however, nothing turns on such contention. Effectiveness of the order dated 29th July, 1991 lost relevance because C.R. 2876 (W) of 1984 stood discharged for default by an order dated 16th June, 2000. Any benefit that the appellant could have derived from an interim order ceased to exist with the passing of the final order. For all intents and purposes, there was no order passed on the writ petition which could enure to the appellant's benefit and, therefore, the learned Judge was not entirely incorrect in recording that till 2006, the appellant had not taken any positive step to have his right enforced.
We called upon Mr. Mondal to show us the report of the District Level Inspection Team; however, he failed to do so. There being no material on record to suggest that the name of the appellant was included in the report as an organizer teacher, we have no other option but to hold that the claim of the appellant is thoroughly unmeritorious.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not feel inclined to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay (C.A.N. 2594 of 2016) stands dismissed. The application for stay (C.A.N. 2605 of 2016) also stands dismissed.
In view of the above order, the appeal (M.A.T. 413 of 2016) need not be registered.
There shall be no order for costs.
3Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
( Asha Arora, J. ) ( Dipankar Datta, J. )