- (1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the applicant, managing Committee of the School.
(2.) DESPITE several directions on diverse dates directing writ petitioner/appellant/opposite party to file affidavit-in-opposition, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The first order was passed on 28th september, 2007 directing to file affidavit-in-opposition. Time to file opposition was extended by the order dated 12th October, 2007. As no opposition had been filed, again direction for opposition was granted on 7th December, 2007 and lastly on 25th January, 2008. As no opposition has been filed till date, we have no basis of the application as has been filed. Furthermore, from the documentary evidence as annexed in this application relating to the departmental proceeding it appears that this application could be disposed of on the basis of the documents as filed. Initially, a writ application was moved being W. P. No. 1845 of 1996 assailing the departmental proceeding as initiated by the Managing committee of the School under Rule 28 (8) of the Management of recognized Non-Govt. Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 read with Management Rules, 1969 against the writ petitioner-Head mistress. On 15th March, 2005, a consent order was passed in the said writ application by the Learned Trial Judge directing completion, of the departmental proceeding and payment of subsistence allowance as usual in accordance with law. This judgment and order dated 15th March, 2005 was sought to be modified by an application by the petitioner which stood rejected by the order dated 21st April, 2005 by the Learned Trial Judge. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner being the present appeal wherein on 21st July, 2005, the Division Bench presided by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice v. S. Sirpurkar (as His Lordship then was) and The Hon'ble Justice Jyotosh Banerjee (as His Lordship then was) despite the fact that the judgment under appeal was a consent judgment entertained the matter and allowed extension of time to complete the departmental proceeding without touching the major directions as passed by the Learned Trial Judge to complete such departmental proceeding by the judgment under appeal. Time limit since expired the Managing Committee of the School approached the Division bench presided by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice v. S. Sirpurkar (as His lordship then was) and The Hon'ble Justice Asit Kumar Bisi (as His lordship then was) seeking extension of such time which was allowed by the Order dated 5th October, 2005 directing to complete the inquiry under one new Inquiry Officer within 31st December, 2005. As the inquiry Officer could not complete the preliminary inquiry, the Division bench was approached further seeking extension of time by the managing Committee of the School when by the order dated 1st March, 2006, the Division Bench extended the time. The present application has been filed praying the following orders. " (a) The enquiry be deemed as held within time stipulated by the hon'ble Division Bench; (b) Alternatively, time for completion of the enquiry be extended appropriately upon modification of the order dated 1. 3. 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, if needed; (c) The period of entitlement of the writ petitioner to full salary be clarified; (d) Stay of further proceedings in W. P. No. 1551 of 2006 pending disposal of this application. "
(3.) FROM the application it appears that challenging the departmental proceeding as it was not finally disposed of in view of the time limit as fixed by the Division Bench as aforesaid another writ application was moved being W. P. No. 1551 of 2006 by the writ petitioner-Head Mistress, the delinquent who is facing the departmental proceeding. In this writ application, an order had been passed on 24th August, 2007 by the learned Trial Judge directing the writ petitioner to seek clarification from the Division Bench as the Division Bench extended the time and as such, the same became the cause of action of filing the writ application.;