Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saberuna Nesha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 August, 2022
09 30.08.2022
Ct.15
W.P.A. 2951 of 2020
rkd (IA NO: CAN 1 of 2021)
Saberuna Nesha
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. B. K. Samanta
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Golam Mostafa,
Mr. T. S. Samanta,
Mr. S. Sardar
....for the respondent nos.5 & 6.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee,
Mr. Prashar Baidya
....for the University.
Mr. Sauvik Nandy
....for the NCTE.
The writ petitioner has questioned the
termination letter dated 18th December, 2019
issued by the Secretary of David Hare Teachers'
Training College (B.Ed), P.S. Gazole, District-
Malda (hereinafter referred to as the "said college").
By the said termination letter dated 18th
December, 2019 the petitioner who was working in
the post of librarian of the said college has been
terminated based on the resolution dated
17.12.2019 adopted by the managing committee as
indicated in the order of termination itself.
The learned advocate representing the
petitioner has submitted that such order of
termination may not be allowed to stand since
without following the procedure and without
observing the principle of natural justice the
termination letter dated 18th December, 2019 has
been issued against the petitioner. In support of
such submission the appointment letter of the
petitioner dated 13th June, 2013 has been relied
upon wherein it has been provided that service
including pay scale would be guided by the rules
and regulations of the NCTE/Government of West
Bengal/Governing Body of the College.
Based on such insertion in the
appointment letter dated 13th June, 2013, it has
been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
said college authority before issuing the letter of
termination dated 18th December, 2019 ought to
have followed the procedure as contemplated
under the West Bengal Service Rules and West
Bengal Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1971. Such submission has been
made since according to the petitioner the service
condition of the petitioner is to be guided by the
Regulations of the Government of West Bengal as
contained in the letter of appointment dated 13th
June, 2013.
Another limb of submission which has
been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is since
the said college is a private B.Ed Training College
which is affiliated to the West Bengal University of
Teachers' Training, Education Planning and
Administration and is recognized by the National
Council for Teacher Education therefore the said
college authority is amenable to the writ
jurisdiction as a result whereof the writ petition is
maintainable against the order of termination
issued by the said college authority. In support of
such submission reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in
1989 Vol. 2 SCC page-691 (Andi Mukta Sadguru
Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti
Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. -vs- V. R. Rudani
& Ors.).
The said college authority, the West Bengal
University of Teachers' Training, Education
Planning and Administration as well as NCTE are
represented by the learned advocates.
It has been jointly submitted on behalf of
the learned advocates that the writ petition is not
maintainable against the said college authority
since the said college is a private college and is not
controlled by the instrumentalities of the State.
Mr. Mostafa, learned advocate representing
the said college authority has also submitted that
the college is not in receipt of Government aid in
any form and is not controlled by the
instrumentalities of the State save and except
having affiliation from the West Bengal University
of Teachers' Training, Education Planning and
Administration and recognition from the NCTE. It
has also been submitted on behalf of the said
college authority that the contention of the
petitioner on applicability of the West Bengal
Service Rules and West Bengal Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971
cannot be accepted based on Clause 5.4 of the
National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2014.
The Court has also been apprised of by the
respondent authorities that West Bengal Service
Rules and West Bengal Sevices (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 have not been
formally adopted by the State Government or the
affiliating University for the purpose of its
application in private B.Ed Colleges like that of the
said college.
This Court has heard the learned
advocates representing the petitioner as well as
respondents and perused the relevant materials
available on record.
Though attempt has been made on the part
of the writ petitioner based on Clause 5.4 of the
National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2014 the terms and conditions of the service of the
petitioner is required to be guided by the West
Bengal Service Rules and West Bengal Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971
but this Court does not find anything on record or
from the submissions made on behalf of the
learned advocates representing the parties to this
writ petition that such Rules of 1971 have been
formally adopted either by the State Government
in the Higher Education Department or by the
affiliating University.
It further appears that said college is not in
receipt of any Government aid and also not
managed and governed by any instrumentalities of
the State save and except having recognition from
NCTE and affiliation from the West Bengal
University of Teachers' Training, Education
Planning and Administration.
In Andi Mukta Sadguru (supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court was considering payment of
emoluments in favour of teaching staff of a college
which was in receipt of public money in the form of
Government aid as it appears from paragraph 15
of the said judgment. But in the present case the
said college is not receiving any Government aid in
any form therefore according to the appreciation of
this Court the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru does not apply in
the present case. Moreover, the said college
authority being a private body not controlled by
the statutory authorities and also not in receipt of
aid from public fund cannot be held to be
amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The application, if pending, also stands
dismissed.
However, this order shall not preclude the
writ petitioner to take steps in accordance with law
against the order of termination, if so advised.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the
order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon
usual undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
