Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated November 3, 2017 wherein the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.I. of Schools) has terminated the employment of the writ petitioner in terms of an order passed by the High Court that was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court on April 12, 2017.
(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to get a reasoned order before such termination takes place. Accordingly to him, a reasoned order was to be passed before disregarding his claim of appointment. The relevant portion of the High Court order dated November 27, 2013 is provided below: 'Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from records that both the writ petitions being W. P. 16554 (W) of 2005 and W. P. 13781 (W) of 2005 were disposed of by an order dated 28th June, 2013 wherein the learned single Judge directed the respondent authorities to disregard the candidature of the respondent No.6 and to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In my view the concerned D. I. to act in terms of order passed on 28th June, 2013 disregarding the claim of respondent No.6 and to consider the panel afresh and take appropriate steps for granting approval within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and concerned D. I. is also directed to pass reasoned order and to communicate the same to the writ petitioner within two weeks from date of passing such order. The writ petitions are disposed of.'
(3.) Subsequent to passing of the order the writ petitioner herein who was the respondent No.6 in the earlier order passed filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench upon hearing the appeal passed an order dated January 27, 2015 as follows: 'The appellant before us in both these two applications was sponsored by the employment exchange in a school. He suppressed such fact and obtained an order of this Court to participate at the selection process in another school. As according to him, the employment exchange erroneously did not sponsor his name. The learned Judge considered the issue and directed the authority to disregard his candidature, in our view, very rightly. The appeal fails and is thereby dismissed.';