Jayasri Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 May, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Jayasri Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 May, 2022

Bench: Abhijit Gangopadhyay

10.05.2022
Item No.102
Ct. No.17
S.A.
                               W.P.A. 2218 of 2022


                                   Jayasri Das
                                       -vs-
                           State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Ms. Sreyanshi Majumdar
                                          ...for    the    petitioner
                    Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Sr. Govt. Adv.
                    Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee
                                          ...for the State
                    Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
                    Ms. Supriya Dubey
                                          ...for the SSC


                    The petitioner filed her fist application for

              transfer on 19.08.2021 and from the Utsashree portal

              in respect of that application it is found that the

              District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) returned the

              application to the Head of the Institution with the

              following remark "in NOC there is no mention

              regarding no objection from MC".      This shows that

              there was one no objection certificate. It has not been

              mentioned who issued the no objection certificate

              though it has been mentioned who did not issue the

              no objection certificate.   The Head of the Institution

              on 01.10.2021 forwarded the application to the said

              D.I. with the remarks that "the school is under

              Drawing and Disbursement Officer and so it is not

              possible to adopt MC resolution for NOC". The Head

              of the Institution further wrote that "documents and
                2




check list are verified and found in order.           The

application is forwarded to DI for further action".

      When the petitioner first filed her application,

her application was not considered for total non-

application of mind which shows enough injustice to

a lady teacher because the Headmaster of her school

clearly remarked that he had no objection if the

teacher/petitioner   was    transferred.      The     first

application was made by this teacher/petitioner when

there was no existence of the Government Memo

dated 22nd September, 2021.         As there was no

Managing Committee, there was no question of giving

no objection to the petitioner by the Managing

Committee. The DDO also was not having the power

of the Managing Committee, he was only appointed

for drawing and disbursing of salaries and other

expenses. The most important person of the school -

the Head of the Institution gave one no objection

which is recorded in the Utsashree portal in the form

of remarks stating that "I have no objection to release

her from the post of A.T. for better placement". This

court fails to understand what better thing could be

done by the Headmaster in the absence of the

Managing Committee of the School while supporting

the transfer application of the petitioner. The District

Inspector of Schools have acted as a mindless

bureaucrat who did the injustice by making the

remark on 25.08.2021 stating that the NOC was not
                  3




taken from the Managing Committee. This is clearly a

feelingless bureaucratic attitude on the part of the

District Inspector of Schools while rejecting the

application of a bona fide teacher who was working in

the school satisfactorily from 18.08.2010.         This also

appears from the remarks in the Utsashree portal.

         The petitioner seeing no other alternative filed

the second application when the conditions put by the

Government in respect of single teacher had already

come into effect. However, the second application was

not at all required to be filed if justice was done to the

petitioner on the part of the District Inspector when

remark of the Headmaster as to no objection was

there.    Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of

the   case    the    second   application   made    by   the

petitioner is to be treated as of no effect. This second

application was not made by the petitioner voluntarily

but under compulsion and therefore there is no

question of abandonment of a known right by the

petitioner. The first application of the petitioner dated

19.08.2021

has to be considered by the District Inspector of Schools as an application with no objection of the Headmaster of the school and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to forward the said application immediately by 14th May, 2022 to the School Service Commission and the School Service Commission is directed to take steps by three weeks from the date of forwarding the application of the 4 petitioner dated 19.08.2021 and to issue transfer order if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

This court hopes and expects that no further injustice would be caused to the petitioner because she filed her application for transfer on the ground of distance of 75 kms of her present school from her residence and she has a child of five years of age.

With the above observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)