07.01.2026

Ct. No. 11

rrc

MAT 848 of 2025

with

IA No. CAN 1 of 2025

and

IA No. CAN 2 of 2025

(The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Pal & Ors.)

Mr. Shamim Ul Bari

…. For the appellants

Mr. Siva Prasad Ghose

Ms. Neha Roy

….. For the respondents/writ petitioners

This proposed appeal has been filed to question the legality

of the order dated 3rd June, 2013 passed in the writ petition being WP 1377 (W) of 2007. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the competent authority to convert the petitioner’s appointment from Assistant Teacher (Work Education Group) to Assistant Teacher (Bio Science) and to

grant approval to such conversion.

The writ petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant

Teacher in the Work Education Group. Subsequently, he improved his qualification by obtaining a postgraduate degree in Geology. The Managing Committee, by adopting a resolution, allotted six classes per week to the petitioner. After rendering service for a considerable period of time, he made an application for conversion of his appointment from Assistant Teacher in the Work Education Group to Assistant Teacher in

Biology.

Since his prayer was not ultimately accepted by the competent authority, he was constrained to file the writ petition. By the order sought to be assailed in the present appeal, the writ petition was allowed.

As indicated in the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter, there is a delay of 3,644 days in preferring the appeal; in addition thereto, certain other defects relating to the joinder of parties have also been pointed out in the report dated 13th June, 2025.

Liberty is granted to Mr. Bari, learned advocate representing the appellants, to remove the defects regarding the joinder of parties in the appeal, as indicated in the said report.

As noticed earlier, there is a delay of 3,644 days in preferring the appeal. In justification thereof, it has been averred in the application for condonation of delay, being CAN 1 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the application), that the order was passed ex parte and was communicated to the State respondents in the month of September, 2013. The appellant/applicant applied for a certified copy of the said order on 3rd February, 2014. Subsequently, by a memo dated 18th May, 2015, Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, was engaged to prefer an appeal challenging the order dated 3rd June, 2013.

In the meantime, a contempt petition being CPAN 422 of

2015 was filed alleging wilful violation of the said order dated 3rd June, 2013. However, the contempt petition was contested by the alleged contemnor.

It was further averred in the application that due to the busy schedule of Ms. Bhattacharya, the appeal could not be preferred, and in the meantime, the earlier District Inspector of Schools was transferred. Lastly, there was a fresh engagement of Mr. Shamim ul-Bari, learned advocate, in the month of May, 2025, and a fresh application for a certified copy was made on 23rd May, 2025. Upon receipt of the said certified copy on 23rd May, 2025, the present appeal was preferred on 9th June, 2025. In the entire process of obtaining the certified copy, preparation of the memorandum of appeal, and its filing, there was a delay of 3,644 days.

Mr. Bari further submits that a degree of flexibility should be granted to the State respondents, taking into account the factors unique to their functioning, such as bureaucratic processes and procedural delays in decision-making. Moreover, he submits that, in accordance with law, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of such conversion.

Mr. Bari asserts that the appellant has a fair chance of success in the appeal and, according to him, such a meritorious matter should not be thrown out at the threshold of the temple of justice merely on the technical ground of its belated presentation. In support of this submission, he relied on the decision, reported at (2023) 10 SCC 531( Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) thr. Lrs. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.).

In r