Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debabrata Maiti vs State & Ors on 26 June, 2014
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
204 26.6.13 W.P.16660(W)of 2014
sn
DEBABRATA MAITI VS. STATE & ORS.
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Ms. Tanuja Basak
.. for the petitioner
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury
Mr. M.K. Sadhu
..for the State
None appears on behalf of the respondent
nos. 9 and 10 in spite of service of copies of the writ applications upon them. Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.
This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent no.2 under his memo no.Law-86/2 dated March 14, 2014. By virtue of the impugned order, the prayer of Bhimpur Santal High School (H.S.), District Paschim Medinipur for approval of appointment of the writ petitioner in the post of an assistant teacher in Chemistry was rejected.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I find that the prayer for approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected on three grounds as follows :-
i) First recognition Memo of the school for 2-
class (Class v & vi) and 4 class (vii & viii) are wanted.
ii) Extension of H.S. section beyond 30.6.2012 is wanted.
iii) As the formation of selection committee & selection procedure for appointment of A.T. in Christian Minority School has not been clearly distinct in G.O.1092/SE(S) dt.6.6.12 the formation of selection committee as well as awarding of marks to the interviewees as made by the school authority are to be clarified.
Due to non availability of the documents mentioned hereinabove, the respondent no. 2 arrived at a conclusion that the school authority failed to follow the procedure for recruitment of an assistant teacher in terms of G.O. No.1092-ES/S dated June 6, 2012.
After considering the observations made by the respondent no.2, I find that those documents were not furnished by the school. But the respondent no.2 did not come to a definite finding that those documents were not there and for the fault on the respondent school the petitioner should not suffer.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside.
The respondent no.2 is directed to take a decision afresh in the above matter in accordance with law after procuring the documents mentioned hereinabove or after coming to a positive finding that the procedure of the recruitment rules was not followed.
The respondent no.2 is directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order as also to communicate such decision to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
The respondent nos.3 and 10 are directed to render their cooperation for furnishing the relevant materials to the respondent no.2 for taking a decision in the matter.
This writ petition stands disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta,J)