Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Padmavathi Sakkinala vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 April, 2022
Court No. 24 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
18.04.2022 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(Item No. 10)
Appellate Side
(AB) W.P.A. 12722 of 2021
Padmavathi Sakkinala
VS
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ujjal Ray
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty
...... for the petitioner
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
..... for SSC
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya
........ for WBBSE
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken
on record.
None appears on behalf of the State
respondents despite service.
The petitioner participated in the 12th RLST
(AT), 2011 conducted by the West Bengal Central
School Service Commission. Initially she was declared
"not qualified" in the aforesaid examination.
She approached the Court on a number of
occasions challenging her disqualification. Lastly, by
a communicating memo dated 25th October, 2019 the
Secretary, Central School Service Commission
intimated the petitioner that the Commission has
declared her "qualified" in part-II in connection with
12th RLST (AT), 2011.
Recommendation letter in favour of the
petitioner was issued by the Commission to the
President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education in September, 2020 and the appointment
letter was issued in favour of the petitioner in
November, 2020. The petitioner joined service as
Assistant Teacher in Work Education in Kharagpur
Telegu Vidya Peetham High School, Kharagpur in
November, 2020. Her service was approved by the
Additional District Inspector of Schools, Kharagpur
Sub-Division on 7th December, 2020 with effect from
November, 2020.
According to the petitioner, had she been
declared qualified at the very first instance, then she
would have attained seniority as well as financial
benefit. The petitioner has annexed document to
show that candidates from the panel prepared in
respect of 12th RLST (AT), 2011 were appointed way
back in the year 2012/2013.
Presently, the petitioner prays for a direction
upon the respondent authorities for grant of
monetary benefits as well as notional benefits in her
favour.
In the order dated 31st July, 2018 passed by
this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner
being WP 5589 (W) of 2018 the Court specially
mentioned that if the petitioner is successful,
necessary consequential relief should be granted in
accordance with law.
According to the petitioner, she is entitled to
consequential relief at par with the candidates of the
panel prepared in respect of 12th RLST (AT), 2011.
In support of the submission made by the
petitioner that she was not at fault and accordingly
the seniority benefits as well as monetary benefits
ought to be allowed in her favour the petitioner relies
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and
Others reported in (2015) 14 Supreme Court Cases
335, paragraph Nos. 9-12, 15 and 16.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion
that the principle of "No work no pay" could not be
attracted where the respondents were in fault in not
considering the case of the appellant and not allowing
the appellant to work on a post carrying higher pay
scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
direct the respondents to release arrears of pay and
allowances to the appellants.
In the present case, it is seen that it was due to
the fault of the respondents that the petitioner was
declared qualified late in the year 2019, that too, after
several rounds of litigation before this Court.
The candidates who appeared along with the
petitioner in the said selection process were given
appointment way back in the year 2012/2013. Had
petitioner been declared successful at the very first
instance, she would have been in service from the
said period i.e. 2012/2013. Due to the illegal and
arbitrary act of the respondents, the petitioner was
issued the letter of recommendation and thereafter
letter of appointment only in the year 2020. By this
time the petitioner lost valuable years in service and
has also suffered financial loss on account of non-
receipt of the salary and also on account of litigation
costs.
In view of the above, the petitioner is granted
leave to file a fresh representation before the Principal
Secretary, School Education Department highlighting
her grievances. In the event such a representation is
made within 28th April, 2022, the same shall be
considered by the Principal Secretary, School
Education Department strictly in accordance with
law, at the earliest, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to all the necessary parties including the
petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of communication of a copy of this order. The
Principal Secretary, School Education Department
shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the
same to the petitioner immediately thereafter.
The petitioner shall be entitled to rely upon all
documents to support the ratio laid down in the
judgment of Ramesh Kumar (supra) at the time of
hearing.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on completion of
usual formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
