PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India depicts a very sorry state of affairs. This is what happens when petty bureaucrats who are servants of the State feel that their small preoccupations are more important than the orders of court. This writ petition was moved on May 15, 2018, and I had directed that affidavits were to be filed though I had recorded my prima facie view that the writ petitioners of the two Madrashas who are seeking approval of their appointment were not included in the application for financial assistance or even in the district level inspection team based on the oral submissions of the learned advocate for the respondents. Such affidavit-in-opposition which could have proved the above was not filed within the time stipulated in my order dated May 15, 2018.
(2.) Mr Mukherjee's submissions were based on the findings of the Director of Madrasha Education (respondent no.3) in his order dated February 21, 2018 at Annexure P14 to the writ petition which has been challenged in the present writ petition. Then again further chance was given to Mr Mukherjee's clients to file the opposition which could have proved the case of the State. This was despite the fact that the department had laid a note before me on June 25, 2018 saying that no affidavit-in-opposition had been filed. On the last date of hearing on June 26, 2018 not only did I give the State a last chance to file opposition but also I did so on Ms Mukherjee's submission that for personal reasons which she could not draft the opposition. I had directed that the opposition must disclose the photocopies of the entire record which was before the third respondent at the time when he took the decision impugned. I had asked Mr Mukherjee to ensure that a competent officer from the office of the third respondent appeared on the date fixed with the original records.
(3.) Today unfortunately neither has any officer appeared nor is Mr Mukherjee in any position to file any opposition. He frankly, candidly and finally submits that no officer from the department of the third respondent was available despite his best efforts.;