Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sudhir Kumar Naskar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 June, 2016
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
W. P. No.10290 (W) of 2016
Sudhir Kumar Naskar
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
15.06.16 Mr. Partha Pratim Ray ... for the petitioner.
Sl-23
(S.R.) Mr. S.N. Bhattacharjee
Ms. Sucharita Ray ... for the State.
Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee
Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari
Mr. Pradip Kumar Maity
... for the respondent nos.7, 8 & 9.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
The instant writ application has been preferred, inter alia, praying for removal of the respondent no.10 from the post of Muksha Siksha Samprasarika in the Khalisani Jainal Memorial Madrasah Siksha Kendra (hereinafter referred to as the said MSK).
Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Vocational Amin Survey Teacher in the said MSK which was established in the year 1998 and was approved on and from 1st May, 2009. The respondent no.10 herein was appointed to the post of Muksha Siksha Samprasarika by the managing committee of the said MSK on and from the 2 month of May, 2009. Such appointment of the respondent no.10 is not inconsonance with the guideline dated 15th December, 2009.
He further submits that the respondent no.10 is not an inhabitant of the locality and that it is very hard to believe that any candidate with requisite qualification was not available in the locality at the time of appointment of the petitioner.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner has no locus to prefer the instant writ application and no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed warranting interference of this Court.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
The petitioner does not have the qualification required for appointment to the post of Muksha Siksha Samprasarak. The approval of the respondent no.10 to the said post was issued on 14th September, 2010 and no explanation has been furnished as regards the delay towards preference of the writ application in the year 2016.
3
Prior to preference of the instant writ application, the petitioner has also not made any representation to the State authorities challenging the appointment of the respondent no.10. It is well settled that in the absence of such representation it cannot be said that the authorities concerned have failed to perform the duty legally enjoined upon them and that as such the allegation of inaction as levelled against the said respondents is not sustainable.
The challenge against the appointment of the respondent no.10 is based on surmises and no legally protected right of the petitioner, which can be judicially enforced, has been infringed.
For the reasons discussed above, the relief as prayed for is not available to the petitioner and the writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)