S/L 6+7

10.03.2025 Court. No. 551 Suvayan/

sb WPA 25320 of 2010 Purnima Dandapat Ghosh Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With WPA 1111 of 2011 Paresh Sutradhar & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Tarapada Das Mr. Chandan Dutta Mr. Goutam Malik …for the petitioner in WPA 25320 of 2010 &

for the private respondent in WPA 1111 of 2011.

Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee Mr. Indumouli Banerjee …for the petitioners in WPA 1111 of 2011 &

for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 in WPA 25320 of 2010.

Mr. Suman Dey Miss. Suman Singh …for the State in WPA 25320 of 2010.

1. This Court has heard Mr. Das, learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Malik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in WPA 25320 of 2010 and the private respondent in WPA 1111 of 2011, Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/State in WPA 25320 of 2010 and Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in WPA 1111 of 2011 and the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in WPA 25320 of 2010.

2. By filing WPA 25320 of 2010 the writ petitioner has practically prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to implement the direction of the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPO, Bankura’) as has been communicated to the writ petitioner as well as to the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 under cover of his memo dated 10.09.2010 whereby and whereunder the said DPO, Bankura directed the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 of WPA 25320 of 2010 to take immediate steps for renewal of contract of Smt. Purnima Dandapat (Ghosh) by extending fresh contract as a Para Teacher of the School of the respondent no. 4, i.e.; Bhedua Salboni Naba Siksha Mandir (H.S.), P.O.-Salboni, District – Bankura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said school’ in short).

3. In course of hearing Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/Para Teacher at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the averments made in WPA 25320 of 2010. It is contended by him that it is undisputed that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher in the said school firstly on 07.03.2008 initially for a period of one year, however, such appointment was renewable as year to year basis subject to satisfactory performance. It is contended that the writ petitioner’s said employment was renewed for the second term on and from 09.03.2010 and all on a sudden by issuing a letter dated 10.05.2010 the then Secretary of the said school intimated the writ petitioner/Para Teacher that further renewal of such contract could not be done on account of non- satisfactory service of the writ petitioner/Para Teacher. The said letter dated 10.05.2010 as issued by the then Secretary of the said school was assailed by the writ petitioner/Para Teacher by filing WP 14327 (W) of 2010 which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2010 by a co-ordinate Bench of this court by passing the following order:

“………………………………….

Having regard to the nature of controversy raised herein, this Court finds no reason to keep the writ petition pending. The same stands disposed of with a direction upon the District Project Officer to conduct enquiry for ascertaining whether the performance of the petitioner was in fact unsatisfactory as alleged by the school or not. Such enquiry shall be conducted within 7 days from date of receipt of a copy of this order. The report of enquiry shall thereafter be placed by the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Bankura before the District Project Director, Sarba Siksha Mission, Bankura for his final decision. The District Magistrate shall decide the issue within a further period of two weeks from date of receipt of report from the District Project Officer. In the event the decision of District Magistrate is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall be supported with reasons and communicated to her. On the contrary, if the allegation of unsatisfactory performance is not fou