Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2017 Ram Chandra Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 January, 2017
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
117 12.01. WP 29649(W) of 2016
ns
2017 Ram Chandra Gupta.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Kanailal Samanta,
Ms. Namita Basu ... for Petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,
Ms. Sangeeta Roy ..... for the D.P.S.C.
Mr. Susanta Pal ... For the State.
The petitioner claims to be an ex-census
employee and as such, an exempted category candidate.
His grievance is that although three other similarly
placed persons have been given appointment, he has not
been given appointment. He has made a representation
dated May 24, 2013 to the Commissioner of School
Education, Government of West Bengal followed by a
reminder dated January 13, 2014 (pages 31 and 32 of
the writ petition). He submits that such representation
should be disposed of at an early date.
Learned counsel for the State, in his usual
fairness, does not seriously oppose such prayer.
However, learned counsel for the District
Primary School Council submits that a report dated
2
September 25, 2014 has been sent by the School Council
to the Deputy Director of School Education which should
be considered by the Commissioner of School Education.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I
direct the Commissioner of School Education,
Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2
herein, to consider the representation dated May 24, 2013 of the petitioner read with reminder dated January 13, 2014 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations and also after considering the report sent by the School Council to the Deputy Director of School Education within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner or his authorised representative.
The decision so taken by the respondent no.2 shall be communicated to the writ petitioner within a fortnight from the date of the decision.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.
WP No.29649(W) of 2016 is, accordingly, 3 disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Arijit Banerjee, J. )