Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gopa Tirki (Roy) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 September, 2024
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
WPA 8800 of 2024
Gopa Tirki (Roy)
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. K. N. Nabi
For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta
Mr. Rajat Datta
For the respondent nos. 3 & 4 Mr. Fazlul Haque
Mr. Sanatan Mondal
For the respondent no.6 Mr. N. C. Bihani
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
Heard on : 02.09.2024
Judgment on : 02.09.2024
JAY SENGUPTA, J:
This is an application praying for a direction upon the respondent college
authorities, especially the Governing Body of the College to set aside the decision to
promote and/or give charge to the respondent no.6, a Group-D employee (Guard) to
the post of Accounts-in-Charge (Temporary), a Group-C post.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.
The petitioner is a Commerce Graduate and has been working as a Clerk (Group-C
employee) at the College in question for quite some time. For nearly the same time
period, the respondent no.6 was working as a 'Guard' (Group-D employee) at the
college. However, when the post of the Accountant fell vacant the Governing Body
without adverting to the relevant law in this regard, gave charge of that post to the
respondent no.6 on a temporary basis and started paying a certain sum for the
same. As would be evident from Statute 3 of Chapter XIII of the Calcutta University
First Statutes, 1979, a 'Group- D' like a 'Darwan' could not have been given the
charge of an 'Accountant' even on a temporary basis.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Principal of the College relies on
his report and submits that when the meeting of the Governing Body took place, he
had objected to the proposal of giving charge of the post of an 'Accountant' to a
Group- D employee like the respondent no.6. In fact, it is not permissible to do so
according to the Calcutta University Statutes.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it is for the
Governing Body to take an appropriate decision in this regard.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 denies the
allegations made in the writ petition and submits that his client is only officiating
as an 'Accountant', purely on temporary basis.
The Governing Body of the College is not represented.
It does not appear that the Governing Body in question had adverted to
Statute 3 of the Calcutta University Statutes while deciding that the respondent
no.6 should take charge of the post of an 'Accountant'.
In view of the above, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a
representation to the Governing Body of the College for passing an appropriate
order within ten days from this date. Within four weeks from the date of making
such representation, the Governing Body shall reconsider the issue of giving such
post to the respondent no.6 even on a temporary basis, in accordance with law and
after hearing the parties. Within a week from the date of taking such decision, the
petitioner shall be intimated about the same.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
As affidavits were not called for, allegations contained in the writ petition are
deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if
applied for, as early as possible.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
ssi
