Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 4542 of 2008 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunals this writ application has been filed. The impugned order reads thus. "Petitioner has tiled affidavit-of-service. Let it be kept with the record. Pursuant to the service Mr. Neogi appeared on behalf of the State-respondents. The petitioner's case in brief is that, D.L.R. & S & it. L.R.C., West Bengal without verification of the necessary documents which could have established petitioner's claim for permanent absorption under the relevant circular recorded the order impugned in this application and as such the said order should be set aside and on the basis of available materials the petitioner should be absorbed in the Government service and necessary direction should be issued on the appropriate authorities. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that the recording authority held that petitioner served only for the period from 1978 to 1980 and, therefore, failed to qualify for consideration of absorption, but the documents submitted by the petitioner would show that he rendered service continuously from 1978 to 1984 and, therefore, he is eligible or absorption. Mr. Neogi appearing for the State-respondents, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to page 38 wherefrom it would be evident that one Binode Behari Mondal claiming himself to be the father of the present petitioner granted all the certificates in favour of his son and Mr. Neogi submits with sufficient force under his command that all the certificates produced by the petitioner are fake, fabricated and forged document and hence the recording officer rightly declined to take note of these documents. We have examined the averments of the petition, the impugned order and also the documents relied on by the petitioner and on plain examination of the documents available as page 38, we have no reason to differ from the view of Mr. Neogi appearing for the State-respondents and, accordingly, we are of clear opinion that the recording officer on the basis of authentic document rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thus, on hearing both the sides and having regard to the relevant materials, we do not find any merit in the present application and the same is dismissed at the admission stage."
(3.) It is the submission of the writ petitioner by referring the documents annexed at pages 77, 78 and 79 of the writ petition, that the certified copy of the order regarding approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner along with other persons in the post of Tahasil Mohorrars though were produced as a proof of work of the writ petitioner in the said post since 1978 to 1984 to attract the Government Policy Decision for regularising the service of those type of candidates in terms of the order of Land and Land Reforms Department. Government of West Bengal being Order No.5670-GB-III dated 15th October, 1998 and Order No. 7517-ISU dated 30th November, 1999 read with the Labour Department Circular No. 1700-EMP dated 3rd August, 1979, but same was not dealt with by the learned Tribunal below. It is further contended that one certificate issued by the existing Tahasildar under whom the writ petitioner worked, was wrongly considered as a forged document only relying upon the submission of Mr. Neogi, the departmental representative.;