Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Manindra Nath Singha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 January, 2020

Niranjan Sahoo @ Niranjan Sahoo & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 September, 2022

Now let me come to the case of Manindra Nath Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. decided by a division bench of our court and reported in (2006) 4 CHN 513. Its facts are most important. The petitioners claimed to be organizer teachers of the school from 16th 7 January, 1986. The Board recognized the school as a IV class junior High School on 1st May, 1994 for 3 years. It was further extended for 3 years. The petitioners prayed for approval of their appointment from 1st May, 1994. Earlier writ applications were preferred where a direction was made upon the District Inspector of Schools to come to a decision whether the writ petitioners could be recognized as organizing staff. His decision was that the school was "a newly setup one where there was no scope of involvement of the organizing staff". That the writ petitioners were organizing staff, was disbelieved. Considering the school to be a newly setup school, staff were to be recruited following the said Act of 1997. The division bench held:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Nimai Charan Dasadhikari & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 May, 2024

Now let me come to the case of Manindra Nath Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. decided by a division bench of our court and reported in (2006) 4 CHN 513. Its facts are most important. The petitioners claimed to be organizer teachers of the school from 16th January, 1986. The Board recognized the school as a IV class junior High School on 1st May, 1994 for 3 years. It was further extended for 3 years. The petitioners prayed for approval of their appointment from 1st May, 1994. Earlier writ applications were preferred where a direction was made upon the District Inspector of Schools to come to a decision whether the writ petitioners could be recognized as organizing staff. His decision was that the school was "a newly setup one where there was no scope of involvement of the organizing staff". That the writ petitioners were organizing staff, was disbelieved. Considering the school to be a newly setup school, staff were to be recruited following the said Act of 1997. The division bench held:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhrubajyoti Roy & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 July, 2025

Subsequently, in a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in FMA 1946 of 2018 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Mrinal Kanti Kumar & Ors.), it was held that the doctrine of merger would not apply to the case of Manindra Nath Sinha (supra), and that the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 7897 of 2010 could not be construed as a declaration of law by the Hon‟ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nabinanda Goswami & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 August, 2020

"Applying the law laid down here, we hold that Manindra Nath Sinha (supra) having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, all Benches of this Court in cases involving similar fact situation are bound to follow the same as a binding precedent and any decision of a learned Judge or Judges, which runs counter to the dicta in Manindra Nath Sinha (supra), Smritikana Maity (supra), Gita Banik and Gopal Singh (supra), is not good law."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document

Saroj Kumar Panigrahi & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 June, 2022

"19. Applying the law laid down here, we hold that Manindra Nath Sinha (supra) having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, all Benches of this Court in cases involving similar fact situation are bound to follow the same as a binding precedent and any decision of a learned Judge or Judges, which runs counter to the dicta in Manindra Nath Sinha (supra), Smritikana Maity (supra), Gita Banik 9 and Gopal Singh (supra), is not good law."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Haradhan Adak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 May, 2023

In this context I rely upon two judgments one passed on 06.09.2006 by Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court, at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 1425 of 2003 (Manindra Nath Sinha and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others) and other passed on 14.09.2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sritikana Maity & Ors. AND State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Harendranath Mondal & Ors. which are same and identical matters and in all these cases Hon'ble Court Orders have gone against the claim of the petitioners. From the above findings I am in the opinion that as the petitioenr and the school authority have failed to produce sufficient documents regarding appointment of the petitioner as an Organizer Teacher and his continuous service records, so the petitioner cannot be considered as an Organizer Teacher in the school.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sk. Obaidulla & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 September, 2023

When the said order of the Single Bench dated 05.06.2014 has been assailed in appeal being FMA 1497 of 2015, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the said order dated 05.06.2014 came to a finding that in view of the proposition of law as enunciated in the case of Manindra Nath Sinha Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2006(2) CLJ, (Cal) 489 and D.I of School (SE), Burdwan & Ors. Vs. Abdul Barik Shaikh & Ors. (MAT 1626 of 2017) came to a finding that with the promulgamation of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 there is no scope and provision for appointment of any organizing teacher from the date of recognition of the school. However, the said judgment of the Division Bench as passed in FMA 1497 of 2015 was set aside in SLP (C) 27804 of 2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India holding the following:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashis Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 4 August, 2025

In paragraph 19 of the said order dated 6 th July, 2018 it was Page |5 succinctly held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that any decision of a learned Judge or Judges, which runs counter to the dicta in Manindra Nath Sinha & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 CHN 513, State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Smritikana Maity, reported in (2008) 1 CHN 582, Headmistress, Garifa Arati Academy for Girls' vs. Gita Banik, reported in (2008) 1 CLJ 453 and State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Gopal Singh & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 WBLR (Cal) 229, is not good law.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document
1   2 Next