Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) This ritual seppuku on the part of the writ petitioner involves, among other things, a challenge to the denial by the respondent authorities to the petitioner of his increments and refixation of his pay after factoring in such increments, in view of the training he had obtained and a challenge to the memorandum dated February 6, 2018 which extended it to many other teachers, who, like the petitioner, had been appointed without a teachers training qualification. Yet I have to deal with a writ petition as it comes to me, and not as ideally it ought to have been drafted. What is to be seen is how far on the face of the lack of material facts and the absence of the proper pleadings as would raise the questions of law which the respondents would be called upon to answer, can the writ petition be held to be maintainable or whether it should be dismissed with liberty to file afresh, since it would fail on purely formal grounds, for technical defects.
(2.) I confess, I tried my best to grant the writ petitioner the relief he had prayed for in prayer (a) of the Writ Petition. I tried to find a kernel of a case which I could sustain on the face of the instructions in writing which I had been able to extract from the respondents after a lot of chances and appointing a learned advocate in the panel maintained by the State of West Bengal to represent the statutory authorities, since none was appearing.
(3.) For this I went through the averments in the writ petition and tried to delve between the lines, to try and supply, in my mind, the averments which ought to have been made for the writ petition not to have failed for formal defects.;