- (1.) The main and important point involved in this case being whether a Tahsildar holds a civil post, in spite of assistance received from the learned Advocate for the Respondents I had requested Mr. N. C. Chakraborty, a senior learned Advocate of this Court to act as an Amicus curiae, to help and assist the Court for determining the issue. The petitioner was admittedly appointed in terms of an agreement as Tahasildar in 1961, at Kakdip Circle, Block No. 6. His appointment was in terms of an agreement, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure "A" to this petition. The said agreement was dated 1st September 1973 and was renewable from year to year. The agreement, thus was due to lapse or expire on and from 31st August 1974. In fact, the 1st September 1973 agreement as mentioned hereinbefore, was the last agreement, which was executed in the instant case. In terms of his agreement, the petitioner was entitled to a remuneration at the rate of Rs. 57.50 paise per month and was also to receive commission at the rate as stipulated.
(2.) It appears that in or about 1965, the petitioner was transferred from Kakdwip to Magrahat Circle, under Block No. 42 and it is his case that on or about 24th February 1973, he was entrusted to carry on collection works in respect of Block No. 1 and Block No. 21. He has further stated that in May 1973, the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Magrahat-II, Respondent No. 1, asked him to furnish an estimate of collection under or in terms of section 23(B) of the Land Reforms Act, 1955 and thereafter the petitioner was surprised to receive a letter dated 16th October 1973, whereby the officer as mentioned above, directed him to make over the entire charge of Block No. 2, to one Serajul Haque Molla, who is Respondent No. 9 in this proceeding and against whom, the Rule has been discharged from non compliance with the Court's order dated 1st June 1978. Such action, the petitioner has claimed to be bad and void, as he was not given reasonable opportunities to show-cause. In fact, the petitioner has claimed the termination of the concerned agreement, to be void and irregular.
(3.) Against such action, a Civil Rule, being Civil Rules No. 4262 (W) of 1973, was obtained on 24th October 1973 and in the said Rule an order was made restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the said order. The said Rule was disposed of on 6th May 1976 by Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. with the following directions : The petitioner will hand over the charge in respect of Block No. 2 and the respondents will permit the petitioner to work in block No. 1. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. This order of the respondents to take such steps and appropriate proceedings against the petitioner as they are entitled under the law.;