Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanghamitra Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 March, 2022
7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
16.03.2022 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Court No. 23 APPELLATE SIDE
d.g.
WPA 3562 of 2022
Sanghamitra Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sakya Sen,
Mr. Sunil Gupta,
Mr. Dipayan Biswas.
... for the petitioner
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Ld. A.G.,
Mr. Anirban Roy, Ld. G.P.,
Mr. Raja Saha,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee.
... for the State
The petitioner was engaged as State Statistical
Manager in the State Programme Management Unit of
National Rural Health Mission under West Bengal State
Health and Family Welfare Samiti on contract basis on
1st January, 2013. The initial contract period was up to
31st March, 2013. The petitioner has, therefrom worked
in the same position on same terms continuously upon
her contract being either extended and/or renewed till
31st January, 2022. The petitioner was served with a
detailment order on 26th November, 2021 which was
challenged before this Court in WPA 19243 of 2021`.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
petitioner's contract was renewed and/or extended up to
31st January, 2022. By an order dated 30th November,
2021, the petitioner had succeeded in having the
detailment order dated 26th November, 2021 set aside.
However, prior to the judgment could be delivered in the
2
said writ petition which was done on 4th February, 2022,
the contractual appointment of the petitioner was
terminated by an order dated 31st January, 2022. The
grounds cited in the said order of termination are
unauthorized absence since 29th November, 2021.
The petitioner says that she cannot be hauled up
for unauthorized absence once the detailment or
transfer order dated 26th November, 2021 had been set
aside as there could be no unauthorized absentees in
such case. The petitioner did not accept the detailment
or transfer order which brought the petitioner before this
Court challenging the same. The petitioner in view of
such order was also not allowed to work in the place
where she was prior to the transfer/detailment.
According to the petitioner, the whole basis of the
termination notice is flawed. The petitioner further says
that the termination is stigmatic in nature and even in
case of contractual appointment termination cannot be
done by ascribing stigmatic remarks without allowing
the petitioner to contradict the same. The petitioner,
therefor, says that the termination order dated 31st
January, 2022 should be set aside. The petitioner in aid
of such final relief also seeks an injunction against the
respondents from filling up the vacancy arising out of
the termination of the petitioner's contract and restoring
status quo ante in the facts of the case.
The petitioner also contends that the termination
order dated 31st January, 2022 is nothing but a ploy to
overreach the orders of the Court. The previous writ
petition challenging the detailment/transfer order was
pending at the time when the termination order dated
31st January, 2022 was issued. This was specifically
done to render any favourable outcome of the litigation
infructuous.
The submissions made on behalf of petitioner are,
however, disputed by the state respondents. The
respondents also raise a point of maintainability.
The nature of engagement of the petitioner was
contractual. She may have worked continuously since
2013 as a contractual appointee on the contract being
renewed and/or extended. This extension and/or
renewal did not change the petitioner's nature of
engagement. A contractual appointment by its very
nature can be terminated.
It is, therefor, required to be seen in the facts of
this case whether the termination was proper or not.
The ground cited by the petitioner may be accepted by
the Court at the final hearing but at this stage no
interim direction in the form of injunction or restoration
of status quo ante as sought for by the petitioner can be
granted. If such relief at the interim stage is granted it
may amount to interfering with a policy matter and will
amount to transgressing into the administrative domain
of the employer. It may also be contended that at the
interim stage an order in final nature is passed.
However, the petitioner's interest is required to be
protected as the writ petition will become a matter of
academic interest in the event, the vacancy arising out
of the petitioner's termination is filled in. That will also
create third party interest. I am told that till now no
engagement has been made in respect of the vacancy
arising out of the petitioner's termination.
In such facts and circumstances, any
appointment to the post and/or office held by the
petitioner prior to the termination made on 31st January,
2022 shall abide by the result of the writ petition. The
state respondents if engage and/or appoint any one
then in the letter of engagement/appointment to fill up
the vacancy arising out of the petitioner's termination
shall mention therein that the same is subject to the
result of the writ petition and no equity will be created in
favour of the appointee.
The matter requires further scrutiny by affording
the respondents an opportunity to disclose their stand
on affidavit.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period
of six week from date. Reply, thereto, if any, shall be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention for inclusion in the list under
the heading ''Hearing'' after expiry of ten weeks.
The maintainability point raised by the state
respondents is left open to be decided at the final
hearing.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
