Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Dipak Kumar Mishra & Ors on 1 August, 2014
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
1.8.2014
ac
M.A.T. 1995 of 2013
State of West Bengal & Ors.
-versus-
Dipak Kumar Mishra & Ors.
Mr. Joytosh Majumdar,
Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharya.
... For the Appellants.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh,
Mr. Subir Hazra,
Ms. Kakali Samajpaty.
... For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Manick Chandra Das.
... For the Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Avijit Gangopadhyay.
... For the Respondent No. 5.
Re : CAN 149 of 2014.
This appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 53 days delay in filing this appeal. As per the Stamp Reporter's report, the last date for filing this appeal expired on 31st October, 2013. The instant appeal was filed on 23rd December, 2013. Thus, there was 53 days delay in filing this appeal.
Reasons for the delay have been explained by the appellants/petitioners in this application. It was stated that the impugned order was passed on 1st October, 2013. Immediately thereafter, on 1st November, 2013; a proposal was given by the concerned District Inspector of schools to the Commissioner of School Education for preferring an appeal against the order under challenge. After receiving such proposal from the concerned District Inspector of schools, approval was sought for from the Legal Remembrancer for preferring such an appeal and the Learned Legal Remembrancer after examining the records gave approval to file the appeal. Thereafter, certified copy was applied for on 3rd December, 2013 and the certified copy was 2 obtained on 17th December, 2013. There was no delay on the part of the appellants, so far as putting the requisites are concerned, for obtaining the certified copy of the said order. After receiving the certified copy of the said order, the instant appeal was filed on 23rd December, 2013.
After hearing the Learned Advocates of the parties and after considering the explanation which was given by the appellants for the delay in filing this appeal, we are of the view that the reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellants in this application.
Accordingly, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Let the appeal now be registered.
Re : CAN 164 of 2014.
We have heard Mr. Majumdar, Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, Mr. Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. Ganguly, Learned Advocate, appearing for the School Service Commission.
We have considered the order under challenge.
In course of hearing of the stay application, an inspection report of the DLIT team dated 25th July, 2005 has been produced before us by Mr. Majumdar, Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants.
We have examined the said report and found that the names of the writ petitioners do not figure as organising teachers of the said school as on the date when such inspection was held on 25th July, 2005. Of course, the earlier DLIT inspection report dated 22nd August, 1998; which is annexed to the stay application, shows that the names of the writ petitioners were mentioned as organising teachers of the said school.
3Fact remains that the upgraded section of the said school was approved sometime in 2005 and vacancy occurred thereafter.
If the subsequent DLIT inspection report dated 25th July, 2005 is considered then it goes without saying that as on the date of the subsequent inspection, the writ petitioners were not acting as organising teachers in the said school and they cannot claim their absorption as organising teacher in the upgraded sections of the said school.
However, this conclusion we cannot arrive at, at this stage as the subsequent DLIT inspection report was neither produced before the Learned Trial Judge by the appellants at the time of hearing of the writ petition, nor this has also been annexed to the stay application filed before us. As such, we feel that no definite conclusion can be arrived at, at this stage, unless the subsequent DLIT inspection report is brought on record.
We, thus, direct the appellants to file a supplementary affidavit disclosing the subsequent DLIT inspection report dated 25th July, 2005 and serve a copy of the said supplementary affidavit upon the respondents and/or their Learned Advocates immediately thereafter. Such supplementary affidavit should be filed within a week from date.
Leave is granted to the writ petitioners/ respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition to the stay application and the supplementary affidavit, if any, be filed by the appellants, within two weeks from the date of service of the copy of the supplementary affidavit upon the respondents, reply, if any, be filed by the appellants/petitioners within a week thereafter.
Let this matter be listed for hearing six weeks hence.
4Let the DLIT inspection report dated 25th July, 2005 which is filed by Mr. Majumdar in Court today be kept with the record.
In the facts and circumstances as stated above, we feel that the appeal should be heard. This appeal is, thus, admitted for hearing.
The appellants are directed to file the requisite number of paper books in the concerned department within five weeks from date.
Operation of the impugned order will remain stayed till the end of November, 2014.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)