Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parimal Bhattacharjee And Others vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 4 November, 2019
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
1
4th November,
2019
(SKB)
W.P. 19514 (W) of 2019
Parimal Bhattacharjee and others
Vs.
State of West Bengal and others
Ms. Debjani Sengupta,
Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee,
Mr. Sobhan Majumder
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
Ms. Iti Dutta
... for the State.
The petitioners are teachers working at Eklavya Model
Residential Higher Secondary School (EMRS). The petitioners are
presently aggrieved by a notice from the Commissioner, Backward
Classes Welfare and Tribal Development to the District Magistrates
of seven Districts in West Bengal by which and evaluation is to be
done of all teachers of EMRS on 1st October, 2019 of their teaching
technique and knowledge of subject.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the bye-laws
dated 3rd December, 2012 relating to method and qualifications
required for recruitment of teacher under the Paschim Banga Adivasi
Kalyan Shiksha Parishad Regulations, 2004. Counsel submits
although the appointments of the concerned teachers was temporary
2
for a period of one year, upon satisfactory completion of probation
and training, an employee may be confirmed against any permanent
post. It is submitted that the same object is reiterated in bye-laws
7(b) where upon satisfactory service, an employee may be continued
on an yearly basis until the concerned teacher attains the age of
sixty years. Counsel relies on an order passed by this court in W.P.
7424 (W) of 2019 (Siben Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal) and a
similar order passed in W.P. 7425 (W) of 2019 where upon hearing
the parties, this court had directed that the representation of the
petitioners be considered by the concerned respondents and a
reasoned order be passed within a period of four weeks. The concerned advertisement forming a part of W.P. 7424(W) of 2019 was not to be given effect to in the mean time.
It is submitted that in W.P. 7425 (w) of 2019, no advertisement had been published by the Public Service Commission. It is also submitted that despite the directions contained in the order dated 16th April, 2019, the petitioners were called for a hearing late- September 2019 and the concerned respondents have not passed a reasoned order till date.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the assessment/evaluation of the teachers of all the EMRS is for facilitating better standards of teaching in the Model Schools and will ultimately benefit the students of the said schools. Counsel 3 construes the bye-laws as containing no bar on the State conducting such assessments and reiterates that the appointments of the concerned teachers were temporary in nature.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that since the facts of this present writ petition are substantially similar to W.P. 7425 (W) of 2019 and W.P. 19401 (W) of 2019 where there was no advertisement published by the Public Service Commission, the respondent no.1 being the Principal Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare and Tribal Development Department, may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order upon hearing all concerned parties within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since the concerned respondent has not passed a reasoned order on the earlier two writ petitions till date, the petitioners are entitled to a limited protection relating to their present engagement. The respondents will accordingly not take any steps to interfere with the present employment of the petitioners until the petitioners get an opportunity to challenge the orders in the earlier two writ petitions. It is made clear that this court will not interfere with the evaluation or assessment which forms a subject matter of the communication dated 24th September, 2019.
This court is also of the view that since the reasoned orders in the earlier two writ petitions will have a bearing on the present writ 4 petition, this writ petition should be heard once such orders are passed. The limited protection given will therefore subsist for two weeks from the date of communication of the reasoned orders on the petitioners.
It is also made clear that the petitioner will communicate their representation to the respondent no.1 within a week from date. This order will be made subject to the writ petitioners putting in the requisite court fees within 11th November, 2019.
Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date, reply, if any; be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Matter to appear under the heading "For Hearing" after six weeks.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)