Umapada Bera vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6426 Cal

Court No. 22             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
22.9.2023                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(Item No. ML-
                                 Appellate Side
126)
                               WPA 20209 of 2017
(AB)

                                 Umapada Bera
                                       v.
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                         Mr. Mrinmoy BHattacharyya
                         Mr. N. C. Dey
                                    ..... for the petitioner
                         Mr. B. P. Vaisya
                         Mr. Gourav Das
                                       ...... for the State




                         The petitioner is at present an Assistant

                Teacher for the subject "English" at one Khila

                Gopimohan Siksha Sadan, District Howrah.              The

                petitioner claimed Post Graduate scale.

                         Referring to Annexure P-13 and Annexure P-

                14 at pages 32 and 33 to the writ petition Mr.

                Mrinmoy Bhattacharyya, learned advocate for the

                petitioner submits that, the impugned order dated

                May 26, 2017 passed by the respondent No. 4 is

cryptic and totally devoid of any reason by which the

claim of the petitioner was rejected.

Mr. Gourav Das, learned State counsel

appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

The office report dated January 11, 2018

suggests that, despite there being direction dated

September 18, 2017 no affidavit-in-opposition was

filed.

Considering the issue involved in the writ

petition and long pendency thereof this Court is of the

view that, no fruitful purpose would be served by

keeping the writ petition pending any further, hence,

this order is passed.

Considering the submissions made on behalf

of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on

record this Court upon scrutiny of the impugned

order dated May 26, 2017 is convinced that, the

same is cryptic in deed and the finding made therein

rejecting the claim of the petitioner is devoid of any

reason save and except the mentioning of the

Government order dated November 27, 2017. The

impugned order does not spell about as to whether

and how the said Government Order dated

November 27, 2007 is applicable or not and even if it

is applicable then what are the disqualifications of the

petitioner so that his claim was rejected.

Be that as it may, it is the well settled principle

of law that, authority while passing an order deciding

the right of a party, it must ascribe sufficient reasons

in support of its decision and the order must be such

that no higher authority shall make any further

endevour to ascertain the decision making process of

the authority who passes the order.

For those reasons this Court is of the

considered view that, the impugned order dated May

26, 2017 cannot sustain in law and accordingly the

impugned order being Annexure P-14 at page 33

stands set aside and quashed.

It is submitted on behalf of the learned State

counsel that, the respondent No. 3 shall be the

appropriate authority to decide the issue.

After considering the submissions made on

behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials

on record the respondent No. 4 is directed to transmit

the records pertaining to this case before the

respondent No. 3 forthwith and positively within a

period of ten days from the date of communication of

this order.

After receiving the records from the respondent

No. 4, he respondent No. 3 then shall issue a prior

hearing notice of at least seven days upon the

petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and then

after giving them an opportunity of hearing shall

decide the issue by passing a detailed reasoned order.

The entire exercise as directed above, shall be

carried out and completed by the respondent No. 3

positively within a period of six weeks from the date

of receiving the records from the office of the

respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 then shall

communicate its reasoned order to the petitioner and

the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 positively within a

further period of two weeks from the date of the said

reasoned order to be passed.

In the event, the reasoned order goes in favour

of the petitioner then the respondent No. 3 shall give

effect to the same positively within a period of four

weeks from the date of communication of the said

reasoned order to the petitioner.

It is made clear that, this Court has not gone

into the merits of the claim of the petitioner in any

manner and the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 5

and 6 shall be at liberty to urge whatever points they

wish to urge by relying upon whatever documents,

records and judgments they wish to rely upon before

the respondent No. 3.

As prayed for by Mr. Mrinmoy Bhattacharyya,

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall

be at liberty to participate in the hearing before the

respondent No. 3 through its duly authorized

representative.

On the above terms, this writ petition being

WPA 20209 of 2017 stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on

compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)