25.6.2025 Ct. No. 8 SB MAT 2215 of 2024 CAN 1 of 2024 (Stay)

Md. Masiujjaman Vs.

Sri Murari Mohan Mandal & Ors.

Mr. Ujjal Roy Mr. Abdur Rahim … for the appellant.

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP Mr. Sayan Ganguly … for the State

1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in a contempt jurisdiction by which the rule was discharged. After perusal of the report of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Uttar Dinajpur reveals that in spite of all efforts being made for replacement teacher for the writ petitioner / appellant from nearby school since

2024, no response has been received.

2. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant / writ petitioner submitted that in disposing of the contempt application the learned single Judge has directed the District Inspector of Schools (SE) to continue to make effort to seek replacement teacher which direction is not permissible in the contempt jurisdiction having regard to the original order passed by the learned Single Judge by which a specific direction was given to the respondent authorities to transfer the petitioner and make suitable arrangement for appointment of teacher in the resultant vacancies. Mr. Roy has referred to the decision in MAT 2464 of 2023 [Rupak Mandal vs. Sk.

Hossain Ali & Others] decided on July 29, 2024.

3. Mr. Basu Mallick, learned A.G.P. while objecting to the maintainability of the appeal has submitted that the learned Single Judge on consideration of the report filed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) dated 29.4.2025 wherefrom it would appear that the teachers – students ratio in the school is about to 1:137 and the appellant is only one assistant teacher in Bengali in normal and Higher Secondary Section and he has to take normal classes in Higher Secondary Section has dropped the contempt proceeding with further direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) to continue to make such efforts to seek a replacement teacher.

4. In a contempt jurisdiction the Court is required to find out whether there has been any willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the original order.

5. In Rupak Mandal (supra) the co-ordinate Bench in a similar situation of the original order has clearly held that the court exercising the contempt jurisdiction cannot pass a fresh direction or a further direction and in disposing of the contempt application has provided a time frame within which the original order is required to be implemented. In this regard we may refer to the following observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Rupak Mondal (supra)

“12. A Person seeking a transfer is still knocking the doors of the Court since last two years yet, the magnanimity of the time bound steps is a far cry. The Authorities are not supposed to keep the fate in lurch and the aspiration of the recipient of the provisions of the law is still in doldrums. When the Authorities have introduced the expression “time bound”, it has to be decided on the anvil of doctrine of reasonability and not to be construed to make it redundant or otiose for all such purposes. Time has come that the Authorities have to adopt the technologies and with a pace of the technological world so as to wriggle out the clutches of the archaic conventional way of functioning. The fundamental point whether the Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction can subvert the original direction or modify the same or to pass a fresh direction, is no longer res integra that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction shall only see that the order is duly implemented but in the event it is found that the person has committed a contempt willfully and deliberately and having no sense of remorse, the Court may pass a suitable order of punishment both in criminal or civil contempt.

13. In Midnapore Peoples’ Cooperative Bank Limited & Others v. Chunilal Nanda & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399, the Apex Court in unequivocal words held that the Court cannot pass a fresh direction