- (1.) This suo motu proceeding was initiated when the attention of the Court was invited to the fact that the writ petitioner in W.P. No.761 (W) of 2005 respondent in MAT. No. 3126 of 2005 had made specific allegations in Paragraph-20 of the writ application filed in December, 2004 that after joining Collins Institute on 14th January, 2004 he had been working for 11 months without salary though, in fact, writ petitioner left service of Collins Institute in May 4, 2004 and, thereafter, got appointment in another school being Sridharnagar Sailendra Vidyapith, P.S. Patharpratima,Dist. South 24-Parganas on 12th May, 2004 and since then had been working there.
(2.) In the affidavit dated 11th January, 2010 respondent Pradip Kumar Das aged 42 years residing at Village Gangapur, P.S. Patharpratima,Dist. 24-Parganas (South) has stated that he had deliberately not made any false statement and has tendered his unqualified apology in the event it transpires that any wrong statement was made by him, that he had no intention whatsoever to prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding or to obstruct the administration of justice. It is stated that his only intention in filing the writ petition was to receive the salary for the period for which he had worked in the Collins INstitute prior to his joining the present school but due to miscommunication and the consequent mistake, the statement in question was typed out in Paragraph-20 of the petition because the writ petitioner Pradip Kumar Das along with 3 other teaching staff members of Collins INstitute had jointly engaged the same learned Advocate to file the writ petitions so that they could get the remuneration against services rendered in the above school. It was because the writ petitioner is staying in the remote village called Patharpratima that on his behalf his other colleagues who have worked in the Collins institute continued to take the papers to the lawyer and though the writ petitioner had instructed his colleagues to inform the learned lawyer, identical writ petitions can be drafted for all four persons. We may point out that writ petitioner Pradip Kumar Das and three other persons namely Sukamoy Panigrahi, Bholanath Paik and Ashoke Kr. Seth all filed separate writ applications on the same day i.e. 24th December, 2003 through the same lawyer questioning denial of approval of the panel for the post of Assistant Teachers in Collins Institute, Kolkata, in spite of having been selected by the Interview Committee. All the four writ petitions were disposed of by the same learned Single Judge by orders passed on the same day i.e. 24th December, 2003, after hearing the State respondent and directing the respondent to approve the panel. In the case of all the four persons including the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools approved the respective panels for the post of Assistant Teacher in different subjects on the same day i.e. 2nd January, 2004 and in each such panel each of the four concerned writ petitioner was the first empanelled candidate. The Secretary of the School issued the appointment letter in favour of the respective writ petitioners on the same day i.e. 6th January, 2004. All the four writ petitioners joined the post of Assistant Teacher in the respective subject in the Collins Institute on the same day i.e. 14th January, 2004. On the next day i.e. on 15th January, 2004, the Secretary of the Collins Institute sought for approval of appointment of all the four writ petitioners from the District Inspector of Schools. Writ petitioner Pradip Kumar Das last worked and rendered his service in the Collins Institute, Kolkata till May 4, 2004 and resigned from the Collins Institute on May 5, 2004 and joined the service as Assistant Teacher at Sridharnagar Sailendra Vidyapith, P.S. Patharpratima,Dist. 24- Parganas (South) where the writ petitioner was and is the permanent resident, but the other three writ petitioners continued to render services as Assistant Teacher in Collins Institute at Kolkata.
(3.) The applications for leave to appeal and appeal being M.A.T. No. 1371 of 2004 to 1374 of 2004 F.M.A. No. 1914 to 1917 of 2004) filed by the Teacher in-Charge and other two teachers of the Collins Institute against identical order dated 24th December, 2003 were dismissed by the Division Bench on merit on the same day i.e. 3rd September, 2004 and the appeals were directed to be stuck off from the file. In spite of identical judgment dated 24th December, 2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismissal of the applications for leave to appeal by identical orders dated September 3, 2004 by the Division Bench, none of the four petitioners were paid any salary for the period from 14th January, 2004 when all the four writ petitioners had joined service in the Collins institute. On the basis of the orders dated January 2, 2004 of the District Inspectors of School approving the pane! for the post of Assistant Teacher in the four respective subjects in which each of the four petitioners was placed as the first empanelled candidate in the respective subjects, the salary was not being released to the four petitioners on the ground that their appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Collins Institute was not approved by the Secondary Education Board. All the four writ petitioners, therefore, filed separate writ petitions on the same day, i.e., on 9th December, 2004 which were disposed of by identical orders dated March 2, 2005 in terms of the following reasoning and directions:- "This writ application is directed against the action of the respondent No. 3 in not approving the appointment of the petitioner who has been appointed Assistant Teacher of....Collin Institute at 140, Dharmatala Street, Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as 'the School'. It appears that an appeal being F.M.A.......of 2004 was preferred against the order dated 24th December, 2003 of His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maharaj Sinha. The appeal having been rejected, there can be no ground for not approving the appointment of the petitioner. After hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the materiaIs-on-record, I am of the view that when the panel of selected candidates has been approved pursuant to an order of this Hon'ble Court, appeal from which has been rejected by the Hon'ble Appeal Court, approval of appointment of the petitioner cannot be withheld. The respondent District Inspector of Schools shall immediately approve the appointment of the petitioner. All arrears shall be released to the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order......";