Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Sakir Hossain vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 August, 2022
26.08.2022.
Court No.13
ap
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2021
In
W.P.A. No. 21999 of 2017
Md. Sakir Hossain
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Asim Hati,
Ms. Nibedita Barui.
...For the petitioner.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Benazir Ahmed.
...For the State.
In Re: CAN 1 of 2021 (Restoration)
Sufficient grounds are available to explain the
absence of the petitioner and/or his Counsel on 6 th
January, 2021 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
The said order is recalled and the writ petition is
restored to its file and number.
Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2021 is disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
In Re: W.P.A No. 21999 of 2017
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order
dated 3rd August, 2017 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum.
By the impugned order, the petitioner's prayer
for regularization and permanent absorption as Clerk
in Nutangram High School has been rejected.
It appears from the record that the petitioner is
the son of Late Md. Yeasin, who was an ex-Clerk in the
said School and the petitioner has been recruited after
temporarily in place of his father. He was absorbed full
time after his father's death. It appears from the record
that the prior permission of the District Inspector of
Schools (SE), Birbhum for filling up the post of Clerk
in the said School was not taken.
The appointment has been made unilaterally by
the School. The procedure for recruitment of
Group-"C" post as stipulated by the State, like
advertisement and notice to employment exchange,
interview, fixation of qualification etc, have not been
followed. It is equally baffling, as to how the petitioner
could have at all been appointed by the School without
the concurrence of the District Inspector of Schools
(SE), Birbhum.
Post 2009, even Group-"C" posts are required to
be filled up by the West Bengal School Service
Commission under the 1997 Act.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State
and the Central Government were to frame a scheme
for absorption of persons like the petitioner in terms of
paragraph 53 of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
-Vs. - Uma Devi (III) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has
not been followed. He further submits that a Scheme
was required to be framed by the State and the Central
Government in this regard.
It is also argued that the petitioner should be
considered upto the age of 60 years for continuous
engagement in terms of the Circular of the Finance
Department of the State dated 25th February, 2016.
This Court is of the view that the petitioner
cannot get the benefit of the said paragraph 53 of the
Uma Devi judgment (supra) since he was recruited in
the year 2004 on temporary basis by the School, and
given the circumstances of his appointment, as
discussed hereinabove.
In so far as Circular dated 25 th February, 2016
is concerned, the same does not apply to the persons
engaged by Schools in the State.
The arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, cannot be accepted.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the
impugned order calls for no interference whatsoever.
Hence, the writ petition must fail and is hereby
dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are directed to act on a server copy of
this order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
