Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Radharam Bouri @ Radharaman Bouri vs Provat Kumar Das & Ors on 2 December, 2022
Form No. J(2).
Item No.5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 02.12.2022
DELIVERED ON: 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T 1246 of 2018
+
I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No.CAN 1820 of 2017)
Radharam Bouri @ Radharaman Bouri
Vs.
Provat Kumar Das & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Praloy Bhattacharjee
Miss. Priya Ghosal
.........................for the appellant
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharjee
..........................for WBBSE
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal filed by the seventh respondent
in WP 7957 (W) of 2002 is directed against a portion of the
order dated 19th November, 2022 in and by which the learned
Single Bench came to the conclusion that the appointment of
the appellant as a Class-IV staff was not sustainable on
account of fake educational certificate having been produced
by the appellant. During the pendency of this appeal the writ
petitioner/first respondent herein has passed away and is no
more and such fact has been recorded by this Court in an
earlier order. One more fact which we have noted is that the
appellant/seventh respondent has already retired from the
service and by virtue of the order passed in the writ petition
his pension has been directed to be stopped apart from other
retirement benefits. The correctness of the order has to be
seen in this appeal.
2. There has been an earlier round of litigation at the
instance of the appellant, who had approached this Court by
filing a writ petition being W.P.16225 (W) of 1998. The said
writ petition was disposed of by order dated 2nd January, 2001
with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) to
pass appropriate orders by complying with the order passed by
the Division Bench dated 11th February, 1998 in MAT 4011 of
1997. It was further observed that in case there has been any
order passed on June 16, 1998 or any other date reversing the
earlier decision, such order would stand set aside and the
District Inspector of Schools after hearing the concerned
parties was directed to pass a reasoned order within a time
frame. Since the appellant had the benefit of an interim
order passed in the writ petition on April 30, 1991 the said
order was directed to be continued till the District Inspector
of Schools complies with the direction issued by the learned
writ Court. Thus, it is seen that there was a direction upon
the District Inspector of Schools to comply with the direction
issued by the Division Bench on 11th February, 1998 in MAT 4011
of 1997.
3. What is important to note that the Division Bench has
taken note of the fact that no academic qualification was
necessary for appointment to the said post in which the
appellant was appointed. In any event, the Division Bench
opined that it is the selection committee which has to satisfy
itself as regards the eligibility of the appellant to be
appointed as Class-IV staff without taking into consideration
the purported transfer certificate/educational certificate
and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools was directed
to consider the matter in the light of the recruitment rules
without in any manner being prejudiced by the said transfer
certificate. Further, the Division Bench observed that in the
event the appellant was not required to possess any particular
academic qualification and assuming that he had filed a fake
certificate but if that has not been taken into consideration,
as a result which the appellant did not derive any benefit
therefrom and appropriate test has been taken in terms of the
rule, the District Inspector of Schools was required to pass
appropriate order in exercise of the statutory power on the
basis of the materials available on record.
4. With the above reasoning the order passed in WP 10770 (W)
of 1997 dated 4th November, 1997 was set aside and the
directions so issued to the said authority. It appears that
this order was not implemented which necessitated the
appellant to approach this Court by filing another writ
petition which was disposed of on 2nd January, 2001 directing
the District Inspector of Schools to comply with the said
direction. This direction was complied with and the District
Inspector of Schools (SE), Bankura by order dated 29 th May,
2001 ordered that from the records the panel so approved by
the then District Inspector of Schools vide office order dated
1st September, 1998 and the appellant secured first position.
The appointment of the appellant was approved by memo dated
25th November, 1998 and the appellant had been discharging his
duties since then. Therefore, the authority held that there
appears to be no reason to deviate from the decision taken by
the District Inspector of Schools vide office memo dated 13th
August, 1998 and accordingly it was held that the said order
would continue to remain in force.
5. Thus, taking into consideration the directions issued by
the Division Bench wherein it was found that there was no
necessity for such educational qualification to be possessed
by the appellant for the relevant recruitment and after the
matter was relegated back to the authorities to take a
decision without reference to such certificate, and the
authority also having taken a decision that the appointment of
the appellant was proper and we find that there will be no
justification to deny the pensionary and other retirement
benefits to the appellant.
6. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the
order passed by the learned single Bench dated 19th November,
2015 directing recovery of the amount of pension and other
retirement benefits already disbursed in favour of the
appellant stands set aside and if any recovery has been made
the same shall be recredited to the pension account of the
appellant within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of server copy of this order and pension to be
continued to be paid to the appellant in accordance with
relevant rules.
7. The appeal is allowed with the above direction.
Consequently, the connected application also stands disposed
of.
8. No costs.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance
of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
I agree, (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
RAJA/Pallab, AR(Ct.)
