Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8379 Cal
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2022
D/L
Item No. 8
15.12.2022
KOLE
MAT 1568 of 2022
With
IA CAN 1 of 2022
Sri Ajit Ghosh
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. B. Sahoo,
Mr. Uttam Kr. Bhattacharyya,
Mr. K. Maitra
... for the appellant.
Mr. Lalit M. Mahato,
... for the State.
Mr. Jamuna Saha,
... for the respondent no. 9.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
application are taken up for hearing together.
A judgment and order dated August 17, 2022,
whereby the appellant's writ petition was disposed of by the
learned Single Judge by giving certain directions, is under
challenge in this appeal.
The appellant was engaged by the Barkola Gram
Panchayat on December 21, 2020, as Tax Collector.
However, his engagement was held to be irregular by the
concerned Block Development Officer who was the
respondent no. 6 in the writ petition. On the basis thereof,
the engagement of the appellant was terminated. This was
challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by giving the
following directions:-
"Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent no. 6 highlighting his grievances. In the event, such a representation is made within August 23, 2022, the same shall be considered by the respondent no. 6 strictly in accordance with the prescribed rules after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties including the petitioner and thereafter take a decision as to whether the engagement process may be approved or not.
The Executive Officer shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to all the parties immediately thereafter.
Till a decision is taken in the matter by the Executive officer, the impugned communication dated October 27, 2021 shall be kept in abeyance."
The writ petitioner was not happy with the order and
is, therefore, before us by way of this appeal. Mr. Sahoo,
learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, says that the
respondent no. 6, who is the Block Development Officer, is
not the authority who can take any decision in the matter. In
any event, it was the respondent no. 6, who found the
engagement of the appellant to be irregular and hence
sending back the appellant to him would be a futile exercise.
Some other competent officer in the administration should
consider the appellant's grievance.
We have also heard Mr. Mahata, learned Advocate for
the State.
We find some substance in the submission of Mr.
Sahoo. Accordingly, we modify the order under appeal to the
extent that the appellant shall make his representation to the
District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, being the
respondent no. 3 herein, within a week from date. If such
representation is made, the respondent no. 3 shall take a
reasoned decision thereon in accordance with law and the
applicable rules and regulations, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of the representation after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant or his
authorized representative as well as to the Pradhan of the
concerned Gram Panchayat. Till such decision is taken, the
communication dated October 27, 2021, issued by the BDO
and the letter dated November 8, 2021, issued by the
Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat shall remain in
abeyance. At the hearing before the respondent no. 3, the
parties will be at liberty to rely on such legal material as they
may be advised.
With the aforesaid modification, the appeal and the
connected application are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!