Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Faiyaz Alam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 May, 2022

Author: Amrita Sinha

Bench: Amrita Sinha

   56.
11.05.2022
   S.D.

                                   W.P.A. 7280 of 2022

                                       Faiyaz Alam
                                           Vs.
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Md. Sarwar Jahan
                   Md. Asraful Huq
                   Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal
                                                   ... For the Petitioner.

                   Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, A.G.P.,
                   Mr. Ranjan Saha
                                                ...For the State.



                   The petitioner seeks approval of service.        He was

             appointed as an organizing staff of Charbhaiya Para

             Madrasah presently known as Charbhaiya Para Shishu

             Siksha Kendra. The name of the petitioner appears in the

             D.L.I.T. report dated 10.06.2010 as well as in the second

             inspection report dated 09.03.2019.

                   It appears that though the other two staff of the said

             Shishu Siksha Kendra were approved by a Memo No. 1922-

             MD-O/2M-08/17 dated 29.09.2011, but the petitioner could

             not be approved as his engagement was after 31.12.2007.

                   The petitioner relies upon a Memo of the Minority

             Affairs   and   Madrasah    Education      Department     dated

             11.09.2017 regarding relaxation of age of candidates who
                         2




were appointed as organizing teaching and non-teaching staff

of approved Madrasah Siksha Kendra/Madhyamik Siksha

Kendra/Sishu Siksha Kendra and who are still continuing in

service.

      The petitioner is continuing in service and has attained

the age of 25 years in the year 2017.           The Madrasah

forwarded a representation to the District Officer, Minority

Affairs on 12.02.2018 praying for approval of the service of

the petitioner. The same has not been considered till date.

The petitioner claims that he is in service on and from 2010

till date without any break.

      Learned advocate representing the State respondents

submits that as the petitioner was under aged on the date the initial inspection was taken, accordingly, his service could not be approved.

It has been submitted that the petitioner attained 25 years which is the minimum age of appointment in Madrasah in the year 2017. It has further been submitted that the petitioner himself did not make any representation before the concerned authority seeking approval of his service.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an 3 organizer staff of the Madrasah in the year 2010 when he was below 25 years of age. In the year 2019 when the second inspection was conducted by the District Level Inspection Team, the petitioner attained the age of 25 years. Presently, the petitioner is eligible for appointment as a staff of the Shishu Siksha Kendra.

Accordingly, leave is granted to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation annexing all documents in support of his claim for approval of service before the respondent no. 4 being the District Nodal Officer and Officer- in-Charge, District Minority Cell, Purulia.

In the event such representation is made, the same shall be considered by the said authority strictly in accordance with law in the light of the Memo. No. 1922-MD-O/2M-08/17, dated 11.09.2017 at the earliest, but positively within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order.

The aforesaid respondent is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties for taking a decision in the matter. The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 4 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)