Ct. 8 State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Chowdhury Maniruzzaman & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6136 Cal

                                          MAT 1481 of 2013
Item-7.                         CAN 1 of 20213 (old CAN 10080 of 2013)
          13-09-2023
                                CAN 2 of 20213 (old CAN 10081 of 2013)
  sg
            Ct. 8                   State of West Bengal & Ors.
                                                Versus
                                   Chowdhury Maniruzzaman & Ors.


                           Mrs. Tapati Samanta, Adv.
                                                        ...for the State appellants
                           Mr. Ekramul Bari, Adv.
                           Sk. Imtiaz Uddin, Adv.
                                                         ...for the respondent

1. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has

submitted that the order dated 4th July, 2012 passed by

Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya (Former Chief Justice of this

Court) was accepted by the District Inspector of Schools

(Secondary Education), Murshidabad and the benefit of two

additional increments in favour of the respondent/writ

petitioner was extended for obtaining Ph.D. decree in

relevant subject with effect from 8th May, 2009 i.e. the date

of convocation.

2. In view of the acceptance of the said order of the District

Inspector of School without reserving any right to prefer an

appeal, we are not inclined to admit this appeal although, the

said order may not be treated as precedent in view of

subsequent decisions of this Court.

3. Although the appellant has contended that the date of

convocation is after promulgation of ROPA 2009 with

retrospective effect from 1st January, 2006, the letter dated

10th August, 2012 shows compliance of the order of the

learned Single Judge without any threat of contempt and

without reserving any right to prefer an appeal. This conduct

disentitle the appellant to prefer an appeal against the said

judgment. Moreover, almost 11 years have passed without

any attempt being made on behalf of the appellant to proceed

with the appeal.

4. Ms. Tapati Samanta, learned Counsel for the State has

referred to an order dated 2nd April, 2014 in which the Bench

presided over by the then Chief Justice had passed an order

of status quo as on date in respect of the implementation of

the order till the next date of hearing.

5. The said order appears to have been passed in the absence of

the respondents. The appellant ought to have brought it to the

notice of the Hon'ble Bench that on 10 th August, 2012 the

order challenged subsequently has been unconditionally

accepted and complied with by the District Inspector of

Schools (S.E.) Murshidabad.

6. Under such circumstances, we do not find any reason to

entertain the appeal at this distant point of time. A valuable

right has accrued in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner.

7. We make it clear that in view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and also having regard to the fact the order

was accepted and implemented, we have not considered the

applicability of ROPA 2009 in relation to the writ petition

and declined to interfere with the order under challenge.

8. The communication dated 10th August, 2012 is taken on

record.

9. Ms. Samanta has given an undertaking to file vakalatnama

by tomorrow. On the basis of such undertaking, we permit

Ms. Samanta to make her submission.

10. In view thereof the appeal and the connected applications

stand dismissed.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)