Prabir Pramanik vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5838 Cal

ML-   24.08.2022
      Ct.15
                                     W.P.A. 11554 of 2021
360
rkd
                                      Prabir Pramanik
                                            -vs-
                              The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Mr. Bapin Baidya,
                   Ms Juin Dutta Chakraborty
                                                         ....for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta,
                   Mr. Pradyot Kumar Das
                                                 ....for the State respondents.

Petitioner is seeking regularization in the

post of Group-D in Joynagar Institution, District-

South 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the

"said school").

According to the learned advocate

representing the petitioner, he was appointed by

the Managing Committee of the said school in the

post of Group-D as per managing committee

resolution dated 1st February, 2003 and he

discharged duty as Group-D staff for more than

ten years. Therefore he has made a prayer before

the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South-24

Parganas vide representation dated 22nd

September, 2014 for his regularization on the post

of Group-D.

Mr. Dutta, learned Additional Government

Pleader appears on behalf of the State respondents

and has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner

on the ground that the petitioner was not

appointed against the sanctioned post on

observance of the relevant recruitment rules

prevalent at the material point of time.

It has also been submitted that the

concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE),

South-24 Parganas did not issue any prior

permission permitting the said school authority to

proceed with the selection process for filing up the

post of Group-D therefore according to the State

respondents petitioner has got no right to be

absorbed in the post Group-D.

Considering of the submissions made on

behalf of the parties, it appears that the

appointment of the petitioner on the post of

Group-D was de hors the recruitment rules as a

result whereof no enforceable right has been

created in favour of the petitioner warranting

issuance of mandamus in order to protect his

service by giving direction for regularization.

In this regard, reliance has been placed on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered

in the case of State of Karnataka -vs- Uma Devi (3)

reported in 2006 Vol. 4 SCC 1.

In view of the aforesaid consideration, the

writ petition stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Affidavits filed by the parties are taken on

record.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the

order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon

usual undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)