WEST BENGAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE ENGINEERING, MEDICAL & TECHNOLOGICAL DEGREE COLLEGE AND ANOTHER Vs. BUDDHADEH DAS AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-2-43
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 09,1996

West Bengal Board Of Examination For Admission To The Engineering, Medical And Technological Degree College And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Buddhadeh Das And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AJUDHIA NATH DHINGRA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAIAH V. K.S.R.T.C. [REFERRED TO]
COMMODORE COMMANDING,SOUTHERN NAVAL AREA [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PAL GUPTA V. MANAGING COMMITTEE,MODEL INTER COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPAKLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DHARAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEELS LIMITED ROURKELA VS. A K ROY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VEERAPPA R SABOJI [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. DK MD S ISKENDERALI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. PREM LATA MISRA KM [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VARANASI VS. MATARU RAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)The service of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 which was terminated during the period of probation is the subject matter involved in this appeal. Before adverting to questions of law involved in this appeal, admitted facts may be noticed.
(2.)The appellant No. 1 is a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was appointed by the board of the appellant No. 1, which was communicated by the Officer-in-Charge and Member Secretary in terms of his letter dated 17-8-92 as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application, in terms whereof the writ petitioner was put under probation for a period of 2 years and his appointment could be terminated during the period of probation by one month's notice. The duties of the petitioner were specified by the Officer-in-Charge and member Secretary in terms of his letter dated 17-8-92, pursuant whereto the writ petitioner was to remain responsible to the Officer in-Charge for any of the duties specified therein, and he was also to perform the duties relating to examination matters (both confidential or non-confidential) as may be assigned to him as and when required by the Chairman or the Officer-in-charge of the hoard with responsibilities. Despite the fact that the appointment of the writ petitioner was communicated by the said authority, and despite the fact that in terms of his duties assigned to him, the writ petitioner was to report to the Officer-in-Charge and member secretary, he immediately after his joining, took up a question with the concerned authorities that the holding of post by the incumbent concerned in the post of Officer-in-Charge cum Member Secretary was illegal, and he as Registrar was entitled to become the full-fledged member secretary.
(3.)For the aforementioned purpose, the writ petitioner issued a letter to the Chairman of the Board on or about 6-11-92 which is contained in Annexuree 'D' to the stay application. As he did not receive any reply, he sent a reminder on 1-12-1992 which is contained in Annexure 'E' thereto, in terms whereof he requested the said authority to abolish the post of Officer-in-Charge and Additional Officer-in-Charge from the board's office. In the said letter he, inter alia, prayed for :
"In conclusion, I may be permitted to request you to look into the aforesaid matter with its gravity so that I cannot be deprived from my professional rights to act as full time Officer-in-Charge redesignated as CN/EN/C61/96/BNG Registrar and to act as member secretary of the board."

;


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