JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 6th July, 2012 in W.P.No. 990(W) of 2012 by which the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 22nd December, 2011 refusing to engage the writ petitioner/appellant herein as Samprasarak, was held to be perfectly justified. The Learned Trial Judge held that there was no scope for any interference. However, since the writ petitioner claimed that though he worked beyond 30th April, 2008, but he has not been paid his honorarium, the Learned Trial Judge directed the concerned authority to hold an enquiry as to whether the writ petitioner has worked after 30th April, 2008 with this rider that in the event it is found that he worked after 30th April, 2008, he shall be paid his honorarium till he worked if he had already not been paid. This exercise was directed to be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The legality and/or correctness of the said order has been challenged by the writ petitioner/appellant in this mandamus appeal. After this mandamus appeal was admitted for hearing, an interim order was passed by which the writ petitioner/appellant was allowed to continue his service and admittedly he has been paid his honorarium till September 2012 pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court on 20th December, 2012.
(2.) BE that as it may, let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Admittedly the writ petitioner/appellant was engaged as Samprasarak of Bengali in Tumrasole Panchaboti Madhyamik Shiksha Kendra of Barabazar Panchayat Samiti of Purulia on 1st June, 2004. On the date of his engagement, the writ petitioner/appellant was below 40 years. As such, he was ineligible for such engagement in 2004 as the guideline issued by the concerned authority provides that no Samprasarak can be appointed below the age of 40 years with a rider that in case suitable candidate of 40 years and above is not available in the locality, age relaxation can be given up to 35 years by the State Government. Here is the case where admittedly neither the State Government was approached for grant of such relaxation nor the State Government granted any relaxation with regard to the age criteria. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that at the time of his initial engagement as Samprasarak in the said MSK, he was not eligible as per the guideline issued by the concerned authority. However, we cannot be unmindful about the nature of such engagement which is contractual and for a specific term. As per the said guideline, such engagement remains valid for one year from the date of engagement. No Samprasarak can be allowed to continue beyond the contractual period unless his or her engagement is renewed followed by a fresh contract. Renewal of contract for each year is independent of the earlier contract and is thus not taken as continuity of service. As such on the expiry of the contractual period, fresh contract is needed for renewal of engagement and renewal thereof is required to be approved by the concerned authority everytime. Here is the case where we find that in 2008, the writ petitioner/appellant acquired Master Degree in Bengali. He was above 40 years in 2008 when his engagement was further renewed. His engagement in 2008 as Samprasarak was duly approved by the Panchayat Samiti which was the approving authority as per the guideline issued in 2003. Once his engagement in 2008 was regularised with his enhanced educational qualification after he crossed 40 years of age, we do not find any legal impediment which may stand in the way of regularising his appointment for the subsequent period. Thus we cannot agree with the Learned Trial Judge that the concerned authority was perfectly justified by refusing to engage the writ petitioner/appellant as Samprasarak. We thus hold that the impugned order cannot be retained on record. The impugned order thus stands set aside. The appellant's disengagement vide the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated 22nd December, 2011 stands set aside. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner/appellant is still rendering his service as Samprasarak in the said MSK, he cannot be denied the benefit of the Government Memorandum being No. 2217 -PN/O/I/O -1/2003 (Policy) dated 23rd April, 2010. Thus this Court directs to regularise the engagement of the writ petitioner/appellant and pay all admissible honorarium which still remains unpaid till date to the writ petitioner/appellant. Such payment should be made to the writ petitioner/appellant within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The appeal thus stands allowed.
(3.) IN view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, all the connected applications are thus deemed to be disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.;