SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1181

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rabindranath Samanta, J.
Madhusudan Das - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 2206 of 2013
Decided On : 20-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Abirlal Chakraborty, Advocate, Rezaul Hossain, Advocate, Bipin Ghosh, Advocate, Md. Sanwar Jahan, Advocate, Asif Mehdi, Advocate, S. Noor Thander, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010 in regulating the engagement of Samprasarak in Siksha Kendra.

Headnote:

Samprasarak - Engagement Dispute - Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010, which regulated the engagement of Samprasarak in Siksha Kendra. The court interpreted the applicability of these orders to the petitioner's engagement and highlighted that the engagement of the petitioner as Samprasarak was not legal under these orders, leading to the rejection of his representation for honorarium.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation for disbursement of honorarium as Samprasarak, citing the engagement dispute based on a chequered background of panel recasting and engagement process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the engagement of the petitioner as Samprasarak was not legal under the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010, and therefore, rejected his claim for honorarium.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the petitioner's engagement as Samprasarak in the Siksha Kendra and his entitlement to honorarium.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010, and their applicability to the petitioner's engagement, leading to the conclusion that the engagement was not legal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's representation for honorarium.

JUDGMENT

Rabindranath Samanta, J. - The petitioner by filing this writ petition challenges the Order dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the respondent No.3, the District Nodal Officer, Burdwan whereby the petitioner's representation for disbursement of honorarium as Samprasarak was rejected.

2. This writ petition has a chequered background which may be delineated as under:

In response to an advertisement published on 21st May, 2007 the petitioner on 23rd May, 2007 applied for the post of Samprasarak in Geography in Khurtuba Sristidhar Adhikary Memorial Madhyamik Siksha Kendra (hereinafter referred to as the Siksha Kendra). For the purpose of engagement of Samprasarak, the Managing Committee of the Siksha Kendra prepared a panel wherein the petitioner was placed in the second position. Challenging the panel, the petitioner moved a writ petition being W.P 13566 (W) of 2007 before this Court. By Order dated 21st September, 2007 the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Bench directing the concerned authority to recast the panel upon deleting the name of one Rafiqul Islam who topped the panel. Since the Order dated 21st September, 2007 was not complied with, a contempt application was filed. Thereafter, the panel was recast, but the candidate who was placed at fourth position of the panel was placed in the first position.

3. Aggrieved by the panel as recast the petitioner filed an another writ petition being W.P 26424(W) of 2008. On 10th September, 2009 the matter was taken up by a learned Single Bench and the learned Single Bench was pleased to pass an Order directing the concerned respondent authority to produce the recast panel before it. Though the matter remained pending for long, the Managing Committee of the Siksha Kendra on 15th June, 2011 took a resolution that the petitioner be engaged as Samprasarak in Geography in the Siksha Kendra. Ultimately, the Panchayat Samity on 26.07.2011 approved the engagement of the petitioner as Samprasarak. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the Siksha Kendra as Samprasarak in Geography on 26.07.2011. After the petitioner got engagement as Samprasarak of the Siksha Kendra, he did not intend to proceed with the writ petition being W.P. 26424(W) of 2008 and on his prayer a learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.

4. Though the petitioner has been discharging his duties as Samprasarak since 26.07.2011, no honorarium admissible to a Samprasarak was disbursed to him by the concerned authority. Getting no other alternative the petitioner, in order to get his honorarium disbursed, filed a writ petition being W.P 17705(W) of 2012. By an Order dated 29th August, 2012 a learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.3, the District Nodal Officer, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order in accordance with law. In compliance of this Order the respondent No. 3 after hearing the petitioner rejected his representation by the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 observing therein that the Managing Committee of the Siksha Kendra and the Panchayat Samity had no legal authority to engage the petitioner as Samprasarak in view of the Government Orders dated 1st January, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010.

5. The petitioner states that since the selection process was initiated in the month of May, 2007, his engagement would be guided by the earlier Government Order and because of this his engagement as made by the Managing Committee of the Siksha Kendra and approved by the concerned Panchayat Samity is lawful.

6. Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner seeks direction that the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the concerned District Nodal Officer be quashed and the honorarium which is admissible to him be released.

7. In his affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No.3 states that after the Government Order dated 1st January, 2010 issued by the Panchayats and Rural Development Department, Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top