MOHAMMAD NURAL ISLAM Vs. AD HOC COMMITTEE MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-4-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 12,1996

MD.NURAL ISLAM Appellant
VERSUS
AD-HOC COMMITTEE, MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

B D GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERR ED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.P.Kundu, J. - (1.)-In this writ application the Writ Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"(a) A writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give any effect and further effect to the impugned order contained in memo No. 2793 dated 26.7.91 and 4063 dated 26.11.91 issued by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and further commanding the said respondents to rescind, withdraw, and/or set aside the said order. (b) A writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider his prayer for extension of service and extend the service of the Petitioner on year to year basis till he attains the year of 65 years. (c) A writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to certify and to transmit this Hon'ble Court the records of the case within such time as may be fixed including the order contained in memo No. 2793 dated 26.7.91 and memo No. 4063 dated 26. 11. 91 at the time of hearing of the rule so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing them all. (d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a). (b) and (c) hereinabove. (e) An ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents. employees or subordinates from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order contained in memo No. 2793 dated 26.7.91 and memo No. 4063 dated 26.11.91 are being annexure "C" and "D" to this Petitioner and further directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue in service till the disposal of the application. (f) to issue ad-interim order in terms of prayer (e) hereinabove. (g) to make to the rule absolute. (h) to issue any other appropriate writ or writs order or orders as to which the Petitioner is entitled. (i) Cost or costs."

(2.)Respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition controverting the averment's made in the Writ Petition.
(3.)According to the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner is a duly qualified person and in 1956 he was appointed as a primary teacher of Charrabiganj South Primary School under Karimpore Circle, District Nadia, by the Secretary, District School Board, Nadia with effect from December 3, 1956. Said appointment was made by an order of appointment dated November 23, 1956. The Writ Petitioner stated that since his appointment in the said school the Petitioner had been working as a primary teacher with honesty, sincerity and integrity to the utmost satisfaction of the authority concerned, as and where he was transferred by the authority concerned. In paragraph 3 of the Writ Petitioner, the Writ Petitioner averred that he passed the school final examination in 1949 from the East Bengal Secondary Education Board, Dacca and in the certificate issued by the said Board the age of the Petitioner was recorded as 18 years 7 months on the tat March of 1949. The Petitioner averred that he has got the copy of the said Matriculation Certificate, but the said record is an old one and it is damaged and defaced and certain writing to the certificate become illegible and the digit 18 also became illegible. The Writ Petitioner averred in the said paragraph 3, that the Petitioner was not sure whether the digit would be 18 or 17. Thus it is evident from the statement made in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petitioner that the document referred to in the said paragraph 3 has reached a position when it is 'difficult even for the Writ Petitioner in correctly ascertain the contents therein. In paragraph 6 of the Writ petition the Petitioner slated that taking his date of birth as tat August, 1930 he was to attend the age of 60 on July 31, 1990 but taking that he was 17 years 7 months old on or about First March, 1949 the Petitioner long before attaining the age of retirement on March 3, 1990 applied before the authority concerned for extension of his service beyond 1.7.1991 to 1.7.1992 for the first time. The Petitioner stated that till April 1991 the Petitioner's prayer for extension of his service was not considered, he stated that again in April 1991 he made a representation before the authorities concerned for extension of his service. According to the Writ Petitioner on May 19, 1991 he was called by the respondent No. 1. to appear before the said authority with ail relevant papers and documents and the Petitioner on 19.5.1991 produced before the respondents all his relevant papers and documents including the school final certificate when from the said certificate it was detected by the concerned authority that the Petitioner was 18 years 7 months on the 1st of March 1949 and not 17 years 7 months.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.