Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pg. Md. Salim vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 November, 2011
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
59 WP No. 7063 (W) of 2003
03.11.2011
pg. Md. Salim Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. J. Islam Mr. Zafirul Islam ... For the Petitioner Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.
This writ petition appears to have been filed sometime in April, 2003. From the records it appears that the matter was taken up for consideration on 10th June, 2003, when the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had sought for an adjournment. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned and subsequently appeared in July, 2003. It further appears that the matter was heard- in-part by Amitava Lala, J. on 31st October, 2003, and subsequently the part-heard was cancelled by an order dated 1st December, 2004. There is, however, no record to show that the matter was taken up for consideration anytime between 2nd December, 2004, till date. From the facts of the instant case it appears that the writ petitioner is seeking a mandatory order to be 2 appointed as a Gram Panchayat Karmee pursuant to an earlier order of this Court dated 20th April, 1998, passed in WP No. 21037 (W) of 1997 at the instance of the writ petitioner. However, upon perusing the order dated 20th April, 1998, it appears that no mandatory direction was issued by the Court for his appointment and the earlier writ petition was disposed of simply by directing the District Panchayat Officer, Uttar Dinajpur at Karnajora, to consider and dispose of the writ petitioner's representation, being Annexure "D" to that writ petition, within a certain time-frame, after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and other interested parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
It further appears that subsequently a reasoned order appears to have been passed by the District Panchayat and R.D. Officer, Uttar Dinajpur, on 8th July, 1998. By the said order dated 8th July, 1998, the name of the writ petitioner was directed to be empanelled in the Register containing the list of claimants being kept in the office of the District Panchayat and R.D. Officer, Uttar Dinajpur, and his employment to the post of Panchayat Karmee was 3 to be considered in due course under the died-in-harness category in strict adherence to the relevant rules of the West Bengal Panchayat (Recruitment and Condition of Panchayat Karmee) Rules, 1995, and Panchayat and Rural Development's memo no. 1995/PN/0/III/2A-21/95 dated 20th October, 1995.
It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in spite of such specific order passed by the concerned authority, although the name of the writ petitioner was empanelled, he was not provided with employment under the died-in-harness category. Such employment has been provided to those whose names were subsequently empanelled. In such a backdrop, he prays that an order be passed directing the concerned authorities to give appointment to the petitioner under the died-in-harness category.
In the above facts and circumstances, there is no scope for this Court to pass any mandatory order as prayed for. Whether or not the allegation of the writ petitioner is true cannot be determined by the writ Court since it is essentially a factual matter emanating out of the order passed by the concerned authority on 8th July, 4 1998, i.e., more than thirteen years ago. Clearly, the writ petitioner's remedy was elsewhere, yet he chose to file the writ petition in the year, 2003.
In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.)