STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SWAPNA SENGUPTA
LAWS(CAL)-1996-1-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 10,1996

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Appellant
VERSUS
Swapna Sengupta Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD,MIDNAPORE V. PASCHIMBANGA PRATHAMIK SIKSHAK SHIKHAN PRAPTA BEKAR-O-SIKSHAK SAMITI,WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN DAS V. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PAL V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRANATH PALAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 18.4.1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge directed implementation of award passed by Susanta Chatterji in terms of His Lordship's Judgment dated 26.2.1990 in C.O. No. 1434(W) of 1983.
(2.)The writ petitioners who are respondents in the present appeal, filed the writ application in the year 1993, inter alia, questioning the validity or otherwise of a panel formed in the year 1983. According to the writ petitioners, the said panel was illegally prepared and consisted of candidates who were either over-qualified or under-qualified. Before Chatterji, J. a consent order was passed and as the appeal involves interpretation thereof, it is necessary to set out the same in extenso :
"Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners and Mr. Habibullah, learned Advocate for the State have jointly submitted that the matter has been sorted out and, in fact, there are five vacancies and against such five vacancies, five of the writ petitioners can be accommodated and will be entitled to such posts. The petitioners will however file an affidavit to that effect.

Those five persons named in such affidavit will be considered for appointment as primary teachers along with the panel candidate and there will be no age bar for the same. Other five candidates will be considered while the next vacancies will occur, in accordance with not stand in their appointment.

Recording such submissions and finding them as lawful, the matter is disposed of."

(3.)As the said order was not implemented, the petitioners filed a writ petition which was marked as C.O. No. 12400(W) of 1993. The relevant statements have been made in paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of the said writ application which are to the following effect :
"3. That some time in the year 1983 a large number of posts for appointment of Assistant Teachers (PE) fell vacant under Kalna Municipality in the district of Burdwan, as a result whereof the Chairman, Ad hoc Committee decided to prepare a panel for appointment of Primary Teachers (Municipal-wise) in the district of Burdwan.

8. That the petitioners having requisite qualifications were not considered by the Selection Committee as against the candidates having over qualifications and not having requisite qualification were considered for appointment by the Selection Board; a panel for appointment of primary teachers having over qualifications and the less qualifications were prepared for appointment of primary teacher ignoring the petitioners' genuine claim for such appointment which were challenged by the writ petitioners in writ proceeding before Honourable Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, as His Lordship then was, on 18th Jan., 1983 when in C.R. No. 1434 (w) of 1983 was issued by His Lordship with an interim order restraining the respondents from giving any appointment from the panel.

9. Ultimately the said Rule came up for hearing after a long time i.e. on 26th Feb., 1990 in presence of the learned Advocate appearing for the State and on the joint prayer of both the learned Advocates appearing for the writ petitioners as well for the State respondents the Rule was disposed of by a consent order. Out of all the writ petitioners five were directed to be absorbed immediately, inasmuch as five vacancies were existing at the relevant time and another five petitioners were directed to be accommodated who will be entitled to such appointment when the next vacancies will occur. The age bar of all the writ petitioners will not stand in the way of their appointment. A xerox copy of the said judgment and order passed by the Honourable Justice Susanta Chatterji on 26th Feb., 1990, is annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'D'."

;


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