24.04.25

10 Ct. No.07 Sws.M WPA 20327 of 2023 Sahanaj Begum Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh Mr. Subir Hazra ….for the petitioner Mr. Samim ul Bari Ms. Indrani Nandi …..…for the respondent No. 2 Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee Ms. Saheli Mukherjee …..…for the respondent No. 6 Mr. Saibal Acharyya …..…for the school authority This is the third round of litigation. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from the concerned respondent to approve her engagement as a para-teacher in History at Kapasia A.M. High School (H.S.) (hereinafter referred to as "the school").

In 2010, a selection process was initiated to fill the vacant post. In furtherance of this objective, a notice regarding the work-in-interview was issued on 5th February 2010, inviting applications from prospective candidates. The notice instructed the candidates to bring certain documents, including a Residential Certificate from the Gram Panchayat, his/her Ration Card and EPIC card.

One Srabani Sengupta secured the top position on the panel, while the petitioner ranked second. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner challenged the selection and engagement of Ms. Sengupta on the ground that she failed to produce the EPIC card on the date of the interview. As her challenge was not accepted by the authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P. 10138(W) of 2010, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 18th October, 2012, directing the concerned respondent to make a decision on the petitioner’s application within the specified time frame.

Pursuant thereto, the District Project Officer, after affording an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner, passed an order on 30th January 2013, refusing to accept the petitioner’s challenge to the engagement of Mrs. Sengupta. The order concluded that there was no ambiguity regarding Mrs. Sengupta’s residential status, as she was a resident of the village of Kapasia, where the school was located. Challenging the validity of the order dated 30th January 2013, the petitioner filed another writ petition, being WPA 9978 of 2013.

The record reveals that by an order dated 22nd September 2022, a Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition, WPA 9978 of 2013. During the hearing of this writ petition, it was brought to the Bench’s attention that a subsequent fact had emerged that respondent No. 7, Mrs.

Sengupta, had left the job.

Taking note of this subsequent development, the Bench disposed of the writ petition, relegating the matter to the school authority with the observation that it would be within the sole discretion of the school authority to decide the issue. The school authority was accordingly directed to make a decision strictly in accordance with the law on the issue raised by the petitioner. However, it was categorically stated in the order that, in any event, the decision would not create any equity in favor of the petitioner.

Pursuant to that order, the school authority exercised its discretion and engaged the present petitioner on 1st November 2022. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she has been rendering services as a para-teacher at the said school to date. However, despite this, no remuneration or honorarium has been paid to her.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that in light of this fact and adopting a sympathetic approach, a direction should be issued to the concerned authority to approve the petitioner’s engagement and release her honorarium. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision reported in (2000) 9 SCC 405 (Kishore K. Pati vs. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore and Ors.), as well as an unreported decision of an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 916 of 2012 (Safiunnessa Begum @ Khatun vs. Farhana Begum & Ors.), and another decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP 16589 of 2014 (Pushpa Roy vs. State of W.B. & Ors.).

Per contra, Mr. Ray Mu