Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
(2.) Mr. Hossain, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that upon emerging to be successful in a selection process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (in short, the said Commission) the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of an Assistant Teacher in Physical Education (Pass) in Mohati Bimal Smriti Vidyapith (in short, the said school). Pursuant to such recommendation the petitioner was appointed to the said post and such appointment was approved with effect from 1st October, 2008 vide memo dated 16th January, 2009 issued by the respondent No. 4. As such appointment of the petitioner was against an additional post, the said school authorities as well as the petitioner approached the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 praying for retention of the said post. As the said representations were not considered, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by a writ petition being W.P. No. 7360 (W) of 2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 6th February, 2017 directing the respondent No. 2 herein to consider the petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the said order the respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 19th May, 2017 to the respondent No. 3 requesting him to initiate a concrete proposal to shift the service of the petitioner to another school of the district, where there is need, because due to paucity of adequate roll strength, the petitioner's service as an Assistant Teacher of the said school cannot be retained. Upon receipt of the said letter dated 19th May, 2017 the respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 27th June, 2017 stating, inter alia, that the service of the petitioner may be shifted to Harinbhasa Nibedita Balika Vidyalaya, Dhekua, Sutahata - I, Haldia as per available vacancy, which has already been sent to the said Commission. In spite of such proposal forwarded vide memo dated 22nd June, 2017, no steps have been taken by the respondent no. 2.
(3.) Ms. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the final decision is required to be taken by the respondent no. 2 and by the memo dated 27th June, 2017 only a proposal has been furnished by the respondent no. 3.;