Decided on December 10,2019

Purnima Saha Respondents


ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)This appeal is filed by the State Government challenging an order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No.32 of 2018.
(2.)Brief facts are as under:
The respondents were the original petitioners of Writ Petition (C) No.251 of 2012. They had challenged the selection and appointment of private respondent Nos. 3 to 7 therein to the post of Assistant Teacher inter alia on the ground that they did not have minimum qualification for the post in question. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 09.06.2017 in following manner:

"4. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made a clear statement before this court that the remaining petitioners will not pursue the ground of challenges as laid in the writ petition. Those petitioners, as urged by Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners, may favourably considered for their appointment in any government department commensurate to their qualification.

5. In response to the said statement, Mr. B. C. Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 has unambiguously submitted that their cases would be positively considered by the Government. Even their cases may be considered in any other Department if they are not found suitable for job under the Education Department.

6. To this proposition, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel and Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4, 6 and 7 did not project any opposition whatsoever and they do not have any reason to oppose such proposition inasmuch as the statement that has been made by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners is nothing short of withdrawal of challenge against their appointments.

7. In view of the emerged situation, this writ petition is disposed of. In terms of the undertaking of the learned Advocate General, the respondents No.1 and 2 shall consider the cases of the writ petitioners No. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 for their appointment. This court under the emerged circumstances would not lay any time frame, however learned Advocate General has assured that within a period of 6(six) months the process of consideration shall be completed and in the event, any writ petitioner has crossed the maximum agelimit the state would take initiative to relax the agelimit on consideration that they were litigating since 2012. The petitioners may file the appropriate application to the competent authorities including the Chief Secretary of the state with the copy of this order.

A copy of this order be supplied to Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. for doing her needful.

No order as to costs. "

(3.)According to the petitioners the State Government did not act as per the statement made before the learned Single Judge. The petitioners therefore filed the above mentioned contempt petition. This contempt petition was disposed of by the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 in which the learned Judge was of the opinion that the State authorities had not committed a wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court however, such undertaking was not complied in its true meaning. Following observations of the said order may be noted:
"13. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that it is not a case of deliberate violation or refusal to implement the undertaking as reflected in the order of the court. But it is true that the undertaking as made by the learned Advocate General has not been complied with inasmuch as even an ordinary man can understand the true meaning of the said undertaking. The undertaking was made to consider the petitioners as a separate class against the vacancies and that to consider them positively. That undertaking implies that the petitioners would be appointed if not, for any reason they are not eligible to such appointment. Even the undertaking has encompassed the relaxation of age if it is found the petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit for the Government employment. However, that part of the undertaking has been complied with. But the petitioners were not considered in terms of the undertaking.

Thus, the respondents are further directed to consider the cases of the petitioners within a period of 3(three) months from the date when a copy of this order be placed to the respondents of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.251 of 2012 in terms of the said undertaking and by treating them as a separate class. The notice as issued for drawing up of the contempt proceeding is discharged subject to the above direction. The proceeding is closed.

A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel for the parties. "


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.