IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Jamila Khatun & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Board of Councillors of Dhuliyan Municipality & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. 11521 of 2012
Decided on : 24-05-2024
Engagement - Siksha Sahayikas - Government Scheme - 30th May 2000, 21st November 2008 - The court interpreted the provisions of the government scheme regarding the engagement and termination of Siksha Sahayikas, concluding that the municipality lacked authority to unilaterally terminate the petitioners' contracts due to procedural irregularities in their initial engagement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a memo from the municipality that reallocated Siksha Siksha Kendras, claiming their prior engagement as Siksha Sahayikas was valid under a government scheme and could not be terminated unilaterally by the municipality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' initial engagement was flawed due to procedural irregularities and that the municipality did not have the authority to terminate their contracts as claimed.
Issues: Whether the municipality had the authority to terminate the petitioners' engagement as Siksha Sahayikas and whether the initial engagement was valid under the relevant government scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' engagement was invalid due to non-compliance with the government scheme's provisions, thus the municipality's memo terminating their services was lawful.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.
1. Writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, challenging Memo No. 3049(19)/Dhuliyan Municipality dated 10th March, 2012 whereby the Chairman of Dhuliyan Municipality (hereinafter referred to as “said Municipality”) communicated to the Councillors to reallocate Sishu Siksha Kendras (hereinafter referred to as “SSK”) in a manner which would enable the authorities to constitute two SSKs in each ward. The said Municipality was having 19 wards and as per the said Memo dated 10th March, 2012 the said Municipality was required to establish total 38 SSKs for 19 wards having two SSKs in each ward. Every SSK would have two Siksha Sahayikas. The said Memo dated 10th March, 2012 is at pages 84 and 85 (Annexure P-9) of the writ petition.
2. Mr. Milon Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that engagement letters were issued on 1st February, 2010 to the petitioners for a period of one year and such engagement was renewable. It is the case of the petitioners that engagement letters were issued in terms of Government Scheme issued vide Memo dated 30th May, 2000. It is further contended that as per the said scheme dated 30th May, 2000 managing committee of the respective SSK was having the authority to engage Siksha Sahayika for a period of one year on contractual basis and the same would be renewable subject to performance of the respective Siksha Sahayika. The eligibility criteria of the candidate who was to be engaged as Siksha Sahayika were also stipulated in the said scheme wherein it was provided that only female candidate is to be engaged whose age was within 40 to 60 years. The candidate must be the resident of the respective ward where SSK situates and in the event eligible candidate is not found in the said ward the candidate from neighboring ward needs to be engaged with a condition that the distance of the said ward has to be nearest from the respective ward. Minimum educational qualification of the candidate under unreserved category should be Madhyamik pass and in those areas inhabited by scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities in the event higher qualified candidate is not available the candidate having qualification of class-VIII pass can also be engaged.
3. By placing reliance on Clause 14(Ka) of the aforesaid scheme it was contended that where SSKs situate under the jurisdiction of municipality the responsibility would be on the shoulder of the said Municipality to smoothly administer, inspect and for overall supervision of the SSKs and the Councillor of the concerned ward would also be entitled to inspect and supervise the SSKs. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no specific power was provided to the said Municipality or its Councillors to engage the petitioners being Siksha Sahayika in the SSKs which were established in terms of the Memo dated 21st November, 2008 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal addressed to the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal. As per the petitioners the scheme which was introduced vide Memo dated 4th June, 1999 issued by the Special Secretary of the concerned department addressed to the Chairman of one Municipality was also applicable and which was relied upon by the learned advocate representing the petitioners during the course of his submission which provides in terms of Clause 11(Ka) the honorarium of Siksha Sahayika would be paid from the grant to be provided by the State Government. Therefore, it was submitted that it was not the municipality but the State Government which provided fund to the SSKs for payment of monthly honorarium, as such the Chairman of the said Municipality did not have authority to dispense with the service of the petitioners while ward wise reallocating SSKs afresh in terms of the Memo dated 21st November, 2008 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal. It was
Pomal Kanji Govindji And Others vs. Vrajlal Karsandas Purohit And Others
Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.
State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Bihar M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & Ors.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors.
Yogesh Mahajan vs. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences
AI
The court established that procedural compliance with government schemes is essential for valid engagement in public service roles.
The withdrawal of engagement must follow the proper procedure as outlined in the relevant government order, and the principle of res-judicata applies to writ petitions.
Estoppel principle applies to prevent authorities from disengaging an appointed individual based on erroneous internal assessments, unless fraud or misrepresentation is proven.
Authorities cannot disengage an employee based on their own errors during selection; principles of estoppel and approbation/reprobation apply.
Selection as Shiksha Mitra does not confer automatic right to appointment post a government ban on appointments, reaffirming the role of state policy in employment matters.
Aptitude test qualified candidates selected for unaided school assistant teacher posts with specified pay scale cannot be appointed on honorarium; entitled to regular pay from original date, coerced ....
Point in Issue :Whether declaration of petitioner as disqualified to continue as member and consequently President of Panchayat is valid and sustainable.
The court affirmed that previous employment claimed by a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak was invalid due to prior judicial orders deeming the recruitment process null and void, thus rejecting claims for ....
The court upheld the legality of the petitioner's engagement based on prior approvals despite subsequent policy changes, reaffirming the principle of non-retrospective application of administrative d....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.