Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mst. Sufia Khahtun vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 September, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No. 14
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
F.M.A. 299 of 2012
(CAN 1 of 2012)
(Old CAN 2913 of 2012)
Mst. Sufia Khahtun
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Sobhan Majumder, Adv.
For the State : Mr. K. M. Yusuf, ld. Addl.G.P.,
Kazi Sajjad Alam, Adv.
Heard on : 13.09.2024
Judgment on : 13.09.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1. Appellant was appointed as a 'Sahayika' at Bandhpara Shishu
Siksha Kendra, Malda in 2009. In 2010 a complaint was lodged
against her that at the time of her appointment, her husband was
the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Shishu Siksha
Kendra. Block Development Officer conducted enquiry in the matter
and submitted report dated 21.06.2010. Thereafter, District Nodal
Officer, Malda, made a representation to the Mission Director,
2
Paschim Banga Rajya Shishu Siksha Mission and the latter by
Memo.No.1186/Mission-167(P-VIII)2010 dated 16.09.2010 opined
that her appointment was in violation of relevant Government
Orders and accordingly illegal. Managing Committee was directed to
forthwith terminate her services. Pursuant to such instruction on
08.10.2010 Additional District Magistrate, Malda and Additional
Executive Officer, Malda Zilla Parishad forwarded the said letter to
the Block Development Officer and directed the latter to terminate
her services. This was challenged in the writ petition which came to
be dismissed.
2. Learned Advocate submits that the term of appellant had been
extended in 2010 when her spouse was not the Secretary of the
Shisu Sikha Kendra. Decision to terminate her was not in terms of
the Memo.No.2849/PN/O/I/O-6/2003 dated 26.06.2009 wherein it
is, inter alia, provided that the Managing Committee cannot
unilaterally refuse to renew the contract of a 'Sahayika'. In the
event it proposes to do so, it has to refer the matter to Panchayat
Samiti and thereupon the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti
is to appoint an enquiry officer who shall undertake enquiry in the
presence of a member of Siksha Sanskriti Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee
Samiti, Jana Swastha-O-Siksha Upasamiti and the Pradhan. The
enquiry report shall be placed before the Siksha Sanskriti Tathya-
O-Krira Sthayee Samiti and their decision will be communicated to
3
the Managing Committee and to the 'Sahayika'. The 'Sahayika' shall
have a right of appeal against such decision.
3. We have considered the submissions of the appellant. Appellant
was appointed in 2009 as a 'Sahayika'. Her deposition before the
Block Development Officer unequivocally shows at the time of her
appointment, her husband was the Secretary of the Managing
Committee of the Shishu Sikha Kendra. This demonstrates a clear
case of nepotism wherein at the behest of the Secretary of the
Managing Committee, his wife was appointed as a 'Sahayika'.
Taking note of such fact, the highest authority i.e. Mission Director,
Paschim Banga Rajya Shishu Siksha Mission recommended her
termination. This was communicated to the Block Development
Officer, Harishchandrapur-II Block by Additional District
Magistrate, Malda and Executive Officer, Malda Zilla Parishad.
Pursuant to such proposal, Managing Committee terminated her
services.
4. Termination of the services of the appellant was founded on the
ground that her initial appointment was a product of favourtisim
and nepotism. Hence, her appointment to the post of 'Sahayika' was
void ab initio. In light of the aforesaid facts mechanical continuation
of her appointment in 2010 is of little consequence.
5. During hearing of the appeal, a new case has been made out. It is
contended termination of 'Sahayika' was not in terms of
4
Memo.No.2849/PN/O/I/O-6/2003 dated 26.06.2009. `No enquiry
officer was appointed by the Panchayat Samiti and the Managing
Committee unilaterally took the decision.
6. We are unable to accept this submission also. The factual matrix
thus the Managing Committee did not act on its own to terminate
the services of 'Sahayika'. Mission Director, Paschim Banga Rajya
Shishu Siksha Mission, that is the highest authority had noted
patent favouritism in her appointment and recommended her
dismissal. Block Development Officer had undertaken enquiry
wherein appellant admitted that her husband was the Secretary of
the Managing Committee when she was appointed.
7. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion adequate
opportunity of hearing was given to 'Sahayika' before the Block
Development Officer with regard to allegation leveled against her.
Block Development Officer is a superior officer to the enquiry officer
envisaged under the Government Memo. Appellant cannot be said
to have suffered any prejudice in light of the procedure adopted by
the respondent authorities to terminate her.
8. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion no case is made
out to interfere with the impugned order.
9. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
10. Consequently, connected application is also disposed of.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to
the parties on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
as
