Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Dipak Kumar Dinda And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA No. 15372 of 2019, 780 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Natural Justice - School Education - Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal, 1991 - MaT 278 of 2013 - WP No. 16313 (W) of 2016 - WP No. 24784 (W) of 2016 - Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & anr. -vs- H. L. Kaveri & Ors. - [Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal, 1991, MaT 278 of 2013, WP No. 16313 (W) of 2016, WP No. 24784 (W) of 2016] - The court discussed the violation of natural justice, the application of recruitment rules, and the relevance of previous judgments in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order terminating their service, alleging violation of natural justice and non-consideration of relevant judgments. The court found that the petitioners were not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order was passed without due consideration of all relevant facts and materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order suffered from gross violation of the principle of natural justice and was passed without considering all relevant facts. It also noted that the petitioners were not responsible for securing appointment in the reserved category and that the authorities failed to detect the alleged error at the time of appointment.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, application of recruitment rules, responsibility for appointment in reserved category.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order violated natural justice and failed to consider all relevant facts. It also emphasized that the petitioners were not responsible for the alleged error in appointment and that the authorities failed to detect the mistake at the time of appointment.
Final Decision: The impugned order and subsequent termination of service were set aside, and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with all service benefits. The court restricted the judicial review to the petitioners in the two writ petitions only.
Saurov Mallick is listed among the advocates who appeared in the proceedings.[Advocates appeared]
JUDGMENT
amrita Sinha, J. - The petitioners (Dipak Kumar Dinda, Kalipada Das and Muktipada Shaw) filed the writ application being WPa No. 15372 of 2019 challenging the order dated 10th august, 2017 passed by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Commissioner directed the Chairman, District Primary School Council (DPSC), Purba Medinipur and Paschim Medinipur to terminate service of twelve primary school teachers under their jurisdiction after giving an opportunity to them and to recast the panel by excluding the names of unreserved candidates from the panel of Scheduled Caste category.
In compliance of the aforesaid direction passed by the Commissioner, School Education Department, the Chairman, DPSC Purba Medinipur terminated the service of Pradip Kr. Mudli Roy and the Chairman, DPSC Paschim Medinipur terminated the service of Dipak Kumar Dinda which is under challenge in the subsequent writ petition being WPa 780 of 2021. as the issue arises out of the impugned order dated 10th august, 2017 both the matters are taken up for consideration analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The entire issue arises out of the selection process initiated by the then DPSC, Medinipur (undivided) in the year 1993. The petitioners in both the writ petitions aver that they participated in the selection process and were successful in the same. appointment letters were issued in their favour in the year 1996. The petitioners in WPa 780 of 2021 submit that since the date of their appointment they performed their work satisfactorily. The aforesaid Pradip Kumar Mudli Roy, petitioner no. 2 in WPa 780 of 2021 attained his normal age of superannuation on 31st March, 2022 and the petitioner no. 1, Dipak Kumar Dinda is due to attain his normal age of superannuation on 31st august, 2022.
Some of the candidates who were unsuccessful in the selection process filed writ petition before this Court being WP No. 24784 of 2016 (Tushar Kanti Dandapat & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.) on the allegation that appointments were given to general category candidates in the reserved posts. The writ petition was taken up for consideration by the Court on 17th November, 2016 and disposed of by directing the Commissioner of School Education to treat the writ petition as representation of the petitioners and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with the applicable law and rules within a specified time after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners and all other necessary parties.
The petitioners herein were impleaded as respondents in the said writ application. all the petitioners aver that prior to their appointment they did not give any declaration that they belonged to any reserved category. None of the petitioners claim to possess or produced any certificate seeking reservation.
as the order passed by the Court directly affected the rights of the petitioners, they preferred an application for review of the order dated 17th November, 2016 being aST 124 of 2017. The application for review is sub-judice and pending disposal till date.
The Commissioner of School Education did not serve any notice upon the petitioners in compliance of the direction passed by the Court on 17th November, 2016. The petitioners for the first time got knowledge of the fact that the Commissioner of School Education considered the matter in compliance of the direction passed by the Court on 17th November, 2016 and passed order on 10th august, 2017. Copy of the impugned order was also not served upon the petitioners.
The petitioners got knowledge of the impugned order from a copy of the writ petition being WP No. 5623 of 2018 praying for implementation of the order dated 10th august, 2017 wherein a copy of the said impugned order dated 10th august, 2017 was annexed. The said writ petition was considered by the Court on 24th June, 2019 and at the time of hearing it was revealed that the order of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of natural justice and the failure to consider all relevant facts and materials in reaching the decision.
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
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
