- (1.) This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11th February, 2013 in W.P. No. 18084(W) of 2012. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant was rejected by the Learned Trial Judge by holding the same is not maintainable. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 11th February, 2013 is under challenge in this Mandamus Appeal at the instance of the appellant/writ petitioner. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Here is a case where we find that the writ petitioner was admittedly appointed as an Additional Para Teacher in Bajitpur High School, District North 24-Parganas. His engagement as Para Teacher in the said school was terminated by the school authority. Hence, he moved a writ petition challenging the said order of termination of his engagement. The said writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 20418 (W) of 2009 was ultimately disposed of by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 21st December, 2011. While considering the said writ petition, the Learned Trial Judge held that the decision of the Managing Committee terminating the engagement of the petitioner was illegal and such a decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the said school without giving him any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the order of termination of the petitioner's engagement which was passed by the Managing Committee of the said school was set aside. The school authority was directed to initiate a proceeding against the writ petitioner and dispose of the same by following the procedure as laid down in the said order. Details of modalities for drawing up the said disciplinary proceedings against him and/or conclusion thereof was framed in the said order. The Learned Trial Judge also held that since the impugned order of termination was set aside, the petitioner should have been deemed to be in the post of an Additional Para Teacher and he was entitled to claim honorarium till the expiration of the contractual period. Fact remains that the contractual period of his engagement expired on 31st December, 2009. It is also an admitted position that honorarium which was admissible to the writ petitioner till 31st December, 2009 was paid to him. It is also an admitted position that no disciplinary proceeding was subsequently initiated by the school authority against the said para teacher by following the direction passed by His Lordship in the earlier writ petition as mentioned above.
(2.) Petitioner now filed a second writ petition being W.P. No. 18084(W) of 2012 praying for implementation of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 21st December, 2012 in his earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 20418(W) of 2009. He complained that his prayer for engagement was not considered by the school authority in terms of the order passed on 21st December, 2011 in his earlier writ petition. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned trial judge on 11th February, 2013 by holding, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable as His Lordship was of the view that if the order of the Court is not implemented by the authority concerned, the only course which is left open to the aggrieved party, is to apply for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. According to His Lordship, the second writ petition is not maintainable for enforcement of the order passed in the earlier writ petition.
(3.) We have considered the impugned order but we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Learned Trial Judge while dismissing the said writ petition and we have come to the said conclusion by relying upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Vivekananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,2003 1 CalHN 154.;