Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Munshi Mosejul Haque vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 30 November, 2021
Daily List 28.
Bpg.
November 30,
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(Via Video Conference)
WPA No.10333 of 2017
Munshi Mosejul Haque
Versus
State of West Bengal and others
Mr. Asim Hati,
Ms. Nibedita Barui,
Ms. Nandini Sharma.
...for the petitioner.
The writ petitioner claims to be appointed in
the post of Night Guard in Mongolkote AKM High
School (H.S.), Natunhat, District-Burdwan on 1st
January, 2002 and has been drawing the
consolidated amount of Rs.1500/- per month from
the fund of the school authority. The writ petitioner
prays for regularisation/absorption in the post of
non-teaching staff in the school where he is
discharging his duty as Night Guard.
In pursuit of obtaining order of absorption
previously a writ petition was filed being WP
No.8884(W) of 2015 (Munish Mosejul Haque Vs. The
State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the same was
disposed of by a coordinate Bench vide order dated
5th October, 2016 directing the District Inspector of
Schools (SE), Burdwan to consider the case of the
writ petitioner for regularisation of his service upon
disposing of the representation made by him in this
regard.
Pursuant to such order dated 5th October,
2016, the concerned District Inspector of Schools
(SE), Burdwan passed a detailed order as contained
in Memo No.42/L-S dated 10th March, 2017 whereby
the claim of the writ petitioner for regularisation was
turned down.
The Memo dated 10th March, 2017 issued by
the concerned District Inspector of Schools is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
This Court has heard Mr. Asim Hati, learned
advocate representing the writ petitioner and also
perused the impugned decision of the concerned
District Inspector of Schools which is the subject-
matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
This Court has specifically asked the writ
petitioner whether any formal appointment letter was
issued by the school authority upon compliance of
necessary recruitment rules prevalent at the material
point of time while appointing the petitioner in the
post of non-teaching staff and whether such
appointment was against any sanction vacancy. This
Court does not find any satisfactory answer from the
learned advocate representing the writ petitioner.
Upon hearing the writ petitioner and
considering the decision of the concerned District
Inspector of Schools, it appears that the writ
petitioner was not appointed following the necessary
recruitment rules against the sanctioned vacancy. In
view of this, writ petitioner does not have any
enforceable legal rights, which can be protected upon
issuance of mandamus. In this regard, the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
& Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported at 2006 (4)
SCC 1 is relied upon.
Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA
No.10333 of 2017 is dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
Urgent website certified copies of this order,
if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance
of all requisite formalities.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
