Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.
Anup Kumar Ghose - Petitioner
Versus
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors. - Respondents.
Civil Order no. 3458 (w) of 1974
Decided On : March 11, 1975
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 22(3) - APPEAL REGULATIONS, REGULATION 4(2), REGULATION 7(1)(B) - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF MANAGING COMMITTEE - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY PROVISIONS - LOCUS STANDI OF TEMPORARY HEADMASTER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temporary Headmaster, challenged the decision of the Appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education reinstating the respondent, the ex-Headmaster, who had been forced to resign under duress. The petitioner argued that the appeal was barred by limitation, the mandatory provisions of the Appeal Regulations were not followed, and he had locus standi to challenge the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal was not barred by limitation as there was no specific limitation period provided under Section 22(3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, and Regulation 4(2) of the Appeal Regulations should not be construed as a rule of limitation. The court also held that the provisions of Regulation 7(1)(b) requiring a further enquiry before an appeal could be heard were not applicable in this case as there was no previous disciplinary enquiry conducted. The court further held that the non-compliance with the requirement of sending the memorandum of appeal by registered post with acknowledgement due under Regulation 4(2) was not mandatory and did not invalidate the decision of the Appeal Committee. Lastly, the court held that the petitioner, as a temporary Headmaster, had locus standi to challenge the appeal as his retention in the post depended on the outcome of the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the mandatory provisions of the Appeal Regulations were followed. 3. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no specific limitation period provided under Section 22(3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, and Regulation 4(2) of the Appeal Regulations should not be construed as a rule of limitation. 2. The court held that the provisions of Regulation 7(1)(b) requiring a further enquiry before an appeal could be heard were not applicable in this case as there was no previous disciplinary enquiry conducted. 3. The court held that the non-compliance with the requirement of sending the memorandum of appeal by registered post with acknowledgement due under Regulation 4(2) was not mandatory and did not invalidate the decision of the Appeal Committee. 4. The court held that the petitioner, as a temporary Headmaster, had locus standi to challenge the appeal as his retention in the post depended on the outcome of the appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the decision of the Appeal Committee reinstating the respondent.
In this application the petitioner challenges a decision of the appeal Committee of the Board of Secondary Education in an appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11, Biswatosh Sen. The petitioner was appointed on 5.3.73 as a temporary Headmaster of Chittaranjan Coloney Hindu Vidyapit on condition, that he would have to vacate if and when the ex-Headmaster, viz. respondent no. 11, is reinstated by competent authority. It is alleged that the respondent no. 11 had to submit a resignation letter on the 3rd. April, 1972 under duress. On 24th of May, 1972 an Ad-hoc Committee was appointed superseding the Managing Committee of the school. On the 20th June, 1972 the respondent no. 11 wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee wherein he stated that he had to sign a so-called resignation letter under duress on 3.4.72; a force-resignation was not a resignation at all and as such he was the Headmaster of the said Institution. In the said letter he also expressed his desire to join his duties as the Head of the Institution on the reopening of the school after the summer vacation. The Secretary, Ad-hoc Committee' replied to the said letter wherein he wrote that the said respondent no. 11 submitted his resignation to the outgoing Managing Committee and it was not known to the Ad-hoc Committee whether the said respondent had submitted his resignation under duress or not. The Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee asked him to return the cash money lying with him and other documents on or before 10th August 1974. In the meantime, the respondent no. 11 preferred an appeal. His grievance was that, he was illegally prevented from doing his normal and rightful duties in spite of his written request made to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee. His salary has been withheld since April 1972 and further the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee advertised for appointment of a Headmaster of the Institution. On the 8th March, 1973 the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education wrote a letter to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee of the Institution requesting him not to appoint any substitute in place of the respondent no. 11 during the pendency of his appeal before the Board. The notice of the said appeal was sent to the Secretary of the school. But he did not file and observation of the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11. The decision of the Appeal Committee was conveyed to the Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee of the school by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by his letter dated 28.5.74, by which the respondent no.11's appeal was allowed and he was reinstated in his post with effect from 3rd April, 1972. The Secretary to the Ad-hoc Committee was requested to comply with the said order of the Appeal Committee of the Board.
2. On 12th of June, 1974 the petitioner filed the present application. I directed that the copies of the application be served upon the respondents. The affidavit-in-opposition have been filed by the respondent no. 11 as well as the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
3. It is contended by Mr. Dutta, on behalf of the petitioner, that the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 11 was barred by limitation.
The said respondent no. 11 did not file any application for condoning the delay. Provisions of Regulation 7(1) of the Appeal Regulations have not been followed. It is further contended that as the memorandum of appeal was not sent to the Board by registered post with acknowledgement due, there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Regulation 4 (2) of the Appeal Regulations.
4. It is alleged that the respondent no. 11 was forced to sign the resignation letter on 3rd April. 1972. Thereafter on the 5th of April, 1972, he wrote a letter to the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for redress. It appears that while further correspondence was being exchanged between the respondent no.11 the Ad-hoc Committee and the Board, an advertisement appeared in the Amrita Bazar Patr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
