Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chhanda Mirdha ( Das ) vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 May, 2013
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
8.05.13
sd.
W.P. 13580 (W) of 2013
Chhanda Mirdha ( Das )
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Ratul Biswas ..... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Joytosh Majumder,
Ms. Debjani Ray.......... For the State.
Mr. S.P. Jana ....For the Respondent No5 to 7.
This writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authority to allow her to participate in the B. Ed (Regular Course) for the session 2013-2014 as also to enjoy study leave in connection with her service as an Assistant Teacher of Boral Rishi Rajnarain Girls High School ( H.S ) P.O. & Vill- Boral .District - 24 Parganas ( South) .
The backdrop of the case is as under:
The petitioner was allowed by the school authority as also the state- respondents to pursue study in B. Ed. Course for the session 2012- 2013 but she was not successful.
The petitioner submitted an application dated October 06, 2012 before the respondent No 7, for forwarding the same to the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of pursuing study in B. Ed course for the session 2013-2014.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted her bio- data before the respondent- school on December 11, 2012 for pursuing the study in the above course through Ordinary Distance Level mode (hereinafter referred to as ODL mode).
The petitioner submitted further application dated March 25, 2013 before the respondent No 7 for pursuing the above study and the bio- data of the petitioner for pursuing the above study through O.D.L mode was forwarded to the respondent No 4. After considering the above bio-data, the respondent No. 4 allowed her for pursuing the study in the above course through O.D.L. Mode.
The school under reference adopted a resolution dated March 30, 2013 in the meeting of its managing committee allowing the prayer of the petitioner and the above resolution was forwarded to the respondent No 4 on April, 03, 2013. According to the petitioner, the District Inspector of School sat tide over the matter. 2 It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that according to the procedure prevailing, an application had to be submitted by the concerned Assistant Teacher before the school authority. Once he/she selected for pursuing the study, he or she could avail an opportunity to pursue study through regular course or through O.D.L.mode , as the case may be. To pursue study in ODL mode entails huge cost and the length of the ODL course is two years while the length of the regular course is one year.
It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the application is under prescribed form for pursuing the study in regular course was counter signed by the school authority dated March 18, 2013.
It is submitted on behalf of the state- respondents that the cut - off date of forwarding the application of the concerned Assistant Teacher through the concerned schools was March 25, 2013. Since the Bio- data of the petitioner for pursuing the study in ODL mode was received before the cut - off date, her case was considered and she was allowed to pursue the above study. No resolution of the school was forwarded to the respondent No 4 for pursuing the study through regular course by the petitioner within the aforesaid cut - off date.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No 5 to 7 that the name of the petitioner was recommended for pursuing study in the above course last year also.
The petitioner did not get chance for pursuing the study through regular course. This year her bio- data for pursuing the study through ODL mode was forwarded within the cut - off date, but receiving of the application of the petitioner dated October 06, 2012 is disputed by him According to him, the mode of study was not mentioned in the application dated October 06, 2012, since the bio- data of the petitioner was received to pursue study in the above course through ODL mode on December 11, 2012 and the same was forwarded to the respondent No. 4.
I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parities and I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case.
It is an admitted position that in the application dated October 06, 2012 the mode of pursuing study was not mentioned. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted her bio- data on December 06, 2012 for pursuing the study in the above course through ODL mode.
So far as the question of counter signing, the application of the petitioner in prescribed pro forma for pursuing the study in regular course, no material is produced before this court to show whether it was sent to the respondent No. 4 within the cut off date. Considering the cut off date of forwarding the application to the respondent No 4, which was 3 March 25, 2013, I find that the application is affirmed on May 02, 2013. I do not find any reason as to why the doctrine " delay defeats equity" will not be applicable in this case, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Though it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the procedure prevailing is to submit an application only without mentioning the mode therein and no relevant document is produced in support of the above submissions. Therefore, considering the application of the petitioner dated October 6, 2012 together with bio- data submitted by the petitioner on December 11, 2012, I find no procedural impropriety on the part of the respondent No. 5 to 7 in forwarding her name for pursuing the study of the petitioner in the above course through ODL mode.
The decision making process of the respondent No. 4 cannot be said to be illegal in view of the fact that the receipt of bio- data of the petitioner through the school under reference for pursuing the study in ODL mode , it was allowed. Admittedly, subsequent resolution of the school dated March 30, 2013 was not received by the respondent No 4 within the cut off date, i.e March 25, 2013.
In view of the above, this writ application is dismissed.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Let the relevant true copies of the relevant records produced by the learned Advocate for the State and the Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5 to 7 be kept with the record.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J ) 4