Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Dhananjoy Karmakar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 April, 2014

Mrinal Kanti Kamar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 May, 2017

This was noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) CLJ (SC) 63. The appointments of the writ petitioners can be said to be regular. Since that they were the genuine organising teachers of the school, the state should have recognised their posts while upgrading the school. In fact in this situations the school at its very inception was outside the purview of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997, in as much as it could not be said that it had any vacancy. If any post has fallen vacant at any later point of time after upgradation of the school to class X it should be filled up in accordance with the said two pieces of legislation of 1997 and 2005.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Biswajit Bera & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 February, 2019

We fully appreciate and accept that submission. We would only like to add that our attention was drawn by Mr. Bhattacharjee to a decision rendered on 22nd September, 2015 by the Supreme court in Dhananjoy Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2016(1) CLJ (SC) page 63, where it was held that since the name of the appellants appeared in the report of the DLIT his service was entitled to be regularized.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

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

10. The argument that the impugned order was passed contrary to the earlier directions of this Hon'ble Court is also without merit. There is no illegality or perversity or contravention of any law in the impugned order. The decision relied on by the petitioners reported in Dhananjay Karmakar vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2016 (1) CLJ (SC) 63 is distinguishable and inapposite.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document

(Swapan Kumar Mukherjee vs The State Of West Bengal on 26 October, 2017

The DLIT report that has been placed before us is a document running into four pages. We can take judicial notice of the fact that DLIT reports are prepared in a prescribed proforma running into nearly 10 pages and on the last page of the DLIT report, members of the DLIT are required to put their signatures. The so-called report placed by Mr. Gharai does not have the signature of any of the members of the DLIT and, therefore, the document produced before us is incomplete. On the basis of such incomplete document, no relief can be granted to the appellant. The decision in Dhananjoy Karmakar (supra) has been perused. The Supreme Court proceeded to grant relief to the petitioner before it on the ground that his name appeared in the DLIT report. We can reasonably infer that a complete DLIT report had been placed before the Supreme Court and based thereon the order granting relief followed. Citing an order passed by the Supreme Court involving facts and 5 circumstances which are entirely different is inapt and we are not persuaded to blindly follow such decision. While concluding, we hold that the appellant's service not having been approved immediately after the school was recognized in September, 1992, such approval cannot be directed to be given on the basis of an incomplete DLIT report (which we are inclined to hold as 'no report' in the eye of law) and that too, on a writ petition which is presented only four months prior to attainment of 60 years of age by the appellant.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Amar Hazra & Anr vs Visva Bharati on 29 August, 2018

In  Dhananjoy  Karmakar  (supra),  it  was  found  that,  the  petitioner was similarly situated and circumstanced as that of other teachers who were regularized. The facts situation in the present case depicts that, the plight of the petitioners are yet to be  decided  upon  in  terms  of  the  Scheme  put  into  place  by  the  University  Grants Commission.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document
1