Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Dinesh Chandra Karjee & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 June, 2014

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

8. He relied on certain unreported decisions--one delivered by a Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 1946 of 2018 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Mrinal Kanti Kumar & Ors.), and three decisions rendered by different Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P. No. 19811 (W) of 2011 (Rakhal Chandra Das & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), W.P. No. 12615 (W) of 2014 (Mrinal Kanti Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), and W.P. No. 10966 (W) of 2005 (Sri Dinesh Chandra Karjee & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). He contended that in similar factual circumstances, the Hon‟ble Benches in those matters 9 found merit in the claims for approval of the appointments of the organising teaching and non-teaching staff.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

22. The next question arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether at this juncture, the writ petitioners are entitled to get approval for appointment as organizing teaching or non-teaching staff of the said Madrasah. On perusal of the server copy of the order dated 05.06.2014 as passed in WP 10966 (W) of 2005, (Sri Dinesh Chandra Karjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), it 10 reveals that in a similar situation the District Inspector of School (S.E.) was directed to approve the appointment of the writ petitioners from the date of recognition of the school.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md. Golam Mehbub vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 April, 2025

Mr. Islam, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contends that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bengali. Drawing attention to the Memorandum dated 17th February 2011, issued by the District Officer, Minority Affairs (DOMA), Nadia, he submits that the petitioner's 3 appointment was duly approved by the competent authority. He further argues that the petitioner has rendered unblemished service to the said Madrasah Shiksha Kendra for a considerable period, and the subsequent stoppage of honorarium payments is the result of an erroneous and arbitrary decision by the concerned authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner's livelihood and future are in jeopardy, and as such, immediate intervention of this Court is warranted. To bolster his argument, he places reliance upon two unreported decisions: one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 3686 of 2022 (Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the other by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. no. 10966 (W) of 2005 (Sri Dinesh Chandra Karjee & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1