- (1.) ON the recommendation of the School Service Commission vide letter dated 30th March, 2010, the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in Birendranagar High School on 4th May, 2010. Admittedly, at the time of his appointment he could not submit certain documents, namely, (i) release order, (ii) last pay certificate and (iii) acceptance of his letter of resignation by the former school viz. Patharmora High School (H.S.) where he was employed earlier. The petitioner was repeatedly called upon by his present employer for submission of those documents as those documents were necessary for regularizing the appointment of the petitioner in the said school.
(2.) AS a matter of fact, those documents could not be produced by the petitioner as the school authority of Patharmora High School (H.S.), Bankura, did not supply those papers to the petitioner, despite order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22nd March, 2010 in W.P. No. 6359(W) of 2010 for issuance of those papers to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to produce those documents to his present employer within a reasonable time, the Managing Committee of the school, where he was appointed as Headmaster, revokes the letter of his appointment and his name was stuck off from the school register. The said revocation order passed by the school authority on 27th February, 2007, contained in annexure P/14, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the said Headmaster. Let me now consider the merit of this writ petition in the facts of the instant case. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the school authority of Patharmore High School where the petitioner was earlier employed, submitted that those papers could not be issued by his client earlier because of the pendency of the criminal proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of his client. He further submits that subsequently his client decided to abandon the said criminal proceeding by adopting a resolution wherein his client also resolved to supply those papers to the petitioner. Accordingly his client supplied those papers namely, (i) release order, (ii) last pay certificate and (iii) resolution of the Managing Committee of the school accepting his resignation letter to the petitioner. This Court is informed by Mr. Chatterjee that no charge-sheet has yet been submitted in the said criminal proceeding. Mr. Chatterjee, further submitted before this Court that his client has no objection, if the petitioner's service in the present school is regularized.
(3.) MR. Sen, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos. 7 and 8, refuted such submission of Mr. Chatterjee by submitting that a person against whom a criminal case is pending, cannot be considered for appointment as Headmaster in this school. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Sk. Nazrul Islam; reported in AIR (2012) SC 160. He further submitted that since the offence for which the said criminal case was initiated against the petitioner is non-compoundable offence, the said criminal case even cannot be withdrawn by the former employer of the petitioner. Thus, by relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court he submitted that no interference is necessary with the order of the revocation of the petitioner's appointment in the facts as stated above. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submited that the appointment of the petitioner was revoked by the school authority, namely the present employer of the petitioner only on the ground of non-production of the above mentioned three documents. He further submitted that his client's appointment was not revoked on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against him. Thus, he submitted that when the pendency of the criminal case against his client was not shown as a ground of revocation of his appointment in the impugned order, the said respondents cannot now justify their action by supplying additional ground which was never whispered in the impugned order. Mr. Basu further submitted that even the criminal case was initiated against his client long after he tendered his resignation before the school authority of the former school where he served earlier. As such, subsequent institution of criminal case cannot stand in the way of regularizing the service of the petitioner, particularly when the lacking documents are now made available to the petitioner by his former employer.;