Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nazema Khatun vs The State Of W. B. & Ors on 29 December, 2014
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
29.12. W. P. 34413(W) of 2014
GB 2014
V/ Ct. No.07
B
Nazema Khatun
-Vs-
The State of W. B. & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya
(Sr. Advocate)
Mr. P. C. Ghosh
Ms. Sudipa Roy
Ms. Kakali Samajpaty
....For the petitioner
Mr. Biswajit De
Ms. Shabana Hassim
....For the State
By his letter dated 13th August, 2008 the Secretary of
Karbona Kanchannagar High Madrasah appointed the writ petitioner
as Matron (Gr.-D. She would get the salary and allowances as per
Rules on the approval of the service by the concerned District
Inspector of Schools (S.E.). This approval was never made. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that this appointment
is absolutely illegal.
Considering the ratio in the case of Uma Devi reported in
(2006) 4 S.C.C. page 1, I do not think this kind of appointment is
illegal but can be "irregular" on the principles of that judgment. This
appointment did not say that the writ petitioner was a temporary or
ad hoc clerk but stated that he was a regular staff of the school on
"substantive basis" subject to approval of the District Inspector of
Schools (S.E.). That is why I say that the appointment was irregular.
Now the grievance of the writ petitioner is that she has been
working from 2008 and should be regularized accordingly. The writ
petitioner is working as a permanent staff of the Madrasah and there
is a vacancy.
Considering the fact that the appointment of the writ petitioner
was irregular in terms of Uma Devi's case, I am of the view that
according to the principles enshrined in that judgment an irregularly
appointed employee can be regularized subject to vacancy and in
appropriate circumstances.
Considering the aforesaid, I dispose of the writ application by
directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda to approve the
appointment of the writ petitioner as a regular Matron (Gr.-D), in the
vacant post within three months from the communication of this
2
order.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations
contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been
admitted by the respondents.
No order as to costs.
Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Register (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on the usual undertakings.
( Arijit Banerjee, J. )