PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The writ petition is taken up under the heading 'For Orders' today.
(2.) The records show that while the writ petitioner was functioning as a headmaster of the concerned madrasah because of certain allegations made against him, the managing committee of the madrasah (respondent No. 8) did not allow him to sign the attendance register or join the duties.
(3.) In the first round of litigation a coordinate Bench directed that the representation of the writ petitioner against this be considered and disposed of by the President of the Board of Madrasah (respondent No. 4 in this writ petition). Such decision was taken in favour of the writ petitioner. This appears from the last paragraph of the decision of the present respondent No. 4 appearing at annexure P/10. The concerned portion is at page '71'. "Going through all the submission following points are to be noted:- (1) Sanjit Sarkar, the Petitioner was appointed in Uttar Naoda Islamic Jr. High Madrasah, Uttar Dinajpur by the Secretary of the Madrasah. (2) He received Rs. 2,16,000 from Govt. of India (SPQEM Scheme) through West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education Regional Office, Malda. (3) The Secretary of the Madrasah alleged against his some unlawful activities like collection of money from some persons and absence in the madrasah without any information. Due to these reasons Madrasah Authority has excluded his name from the list of teachers of the Madrasah. But the Madrasah Authority has neither informed the matter to the Sanjit Sarkar, nor served any show cause notice to him for explanation. That is why the matter of deletion of his name has been done maintaining the procedure. Hence exclusion of his name cannot be approved at this stage.";