Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Kumar Singha Mahapatra vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 March, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
11.03.2020
Item no. 15
Court no.15
dd WP 3413 (W) of 2020
Pradip Kumar Singha Mahapatra
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Sutirtha Das
... ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick
Mr. Sajal Kr. Pandit
... ...For the State
Mr. Ranjan Saha
.....For the respondent nos. 3 & 4
The present writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia an order dated 2nd January, 2020 passed by the respondent no.4.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the private respondent no.9, who was working as a para teacher in the Jagrata Siksha Niketan Primary School (in short, the said school) where the petitioner was the Head Teacher, was temporarily shifted to Sukanta Primary School by a memo dated 29th July, 2016 issued by the respondent no.8 but she was again brought back to the said school by a memo dated 10th January, 2019. Upon returning to the said school, the said respondent no.9 started creating disturbances. Such fact though intimated to the respondent no. 4 by a representation dated 29th January, 2019, no steps were taken and 2 aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had to approach this Court earlier by a writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 21st August, 2019 directing the respondent no.4 herein to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 29th January, 2019.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the said representation dated 29th January, 2019 and the contents of the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2020, Mr. Sanyal submits that without arriving at any specific finding pertaining to the issues agitated, the respondent no.4 without any independent application of mind took a decision to shift the petitioner to another school though he had been serving in the said school without any complaint whatsoever for a substantial period of time. The directions contained in the earlier order of this Court were also not granted any weightage while passing the impugned order.
Mr. Sanyal submits that during the pendency of the earlier writ petition show cause notices were issued by the respondent no.8 on 17th April, 2019 and 13th June, 2019 and from such sequence of facts it is explicit that prior to consideration of the petitioner's representation, the authorities had already made up their minds to transfer the petitioner to another school. Such arbitrary, vindictive and unreasonable action of the respondents warrants interference of this Court.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition, Mr. Sanyal submits that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the teacher pupil ratio and on such ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention reliance has been 3 placed upon a judgment delivered in an appeal, being AST 55 of 2019, on 2nd December, 2019.
Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that the petitioner was granted appropriate opportunity of hearing. His grievances were taken into consideration and an order had been passed supported with cogent reasons and as such, no interference is called for.
Mr. Basu Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that it would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 69 to 73 of the writ petition that the petitioner himself submitted applications for his transfer to other schools. The Vivekananda Ashram Primary School where the petitioner has been transferred is about 1.5 km away from the said school. The petitioner had also been absent in the said school for a substantial period of time and to ensure proper functioning of the said school and in the interest of education appropriate direction has been issued by the respondent no.4 by a reasoned order and as such no interference is called for.
Records reveal that the petitioner was issued show cause notices on 17th April, 2019 and 13th June, 2019 but the same were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of final hearing of the earlier writ petition. It also appears that the petitioner had been absent in the said school for a substantial period of time and he himself applied for medical leave for a period from 8th April, 2019 to 27th August, 2019. In the order dated 2nd January, 2020 it had been recorded inter alia that the petitioner himself wanted to shift to some other school if the para-teacher, being the respondent no.9, cannot be shifted. The said order appears to have been passed upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private 4 respondent and other teachers in the said school and to ensure proper functioning of the said school. The petitioner has failed to establish any mala fide or arbitrariness. The order impugned is not bereft of public and administrative reason and the same has not been issued on mere ipse dixit of any authority. The order passed in AST 55 of 2019 is also distinguishable on facts and has no manner of application in the instant case.
It is well-settled that the Writ Court cannot transpose itself an appellate authority when the executive functionary 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.
Applying such proposition of law to the facts of this case, this Court is unable to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)