Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalyan Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
WPA 14076 of 2015
With
CAN 4 of 2022
With
CAN 5 of 2022
Kalyan Das & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya
Mr. Sarthak Burman
Mr. Sandip Das
For the State : Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury
Ms. Debangana Dey Nayak
Heard on : 19.09.2024
Judgment on : 19.09.2024
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:
1. In this writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of
appropriate writ against the respondents commanding them from
not to make any obstruction in taking regular classes in Sunderban
Mahavidyalaya with a further prayer to release their salaries
forthwith.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that all the writ
petitioners were appointed by the respondent no. 4, i.e., the
Secretary of the governing body of Sundarban Mahavidyalaya as
guest lecturers in different subjects. It is submitted further that in
the said appointment letter it has been specifically mentioned that
such appointment is temporary in nature for a period of six months
which is renewable after every six months with a break of service
for one full working day in between and such temporary service can
be terminated by one month notice.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though their service was
renewed time to time till May, 2015 but subsequently they were not
allowed to take classes in the college of the respondent no. 4
authority.
4. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that as per
the terms of the appointment letter some of which have been
annexed with the instant writ petition the writ petitioners' services
were never terminated by one month's notice and thus the action of
the respondent authorities more specifically the respondent no. 4 is
totally illegal for which the invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court is
very much required.
5. Per contra, learned Advocate for the State submits before this
Court that the instant writ petition is ex facie not maintainable. It
is submitted further that inordinate delay has been caused in
serving notice upon the respondents on behalf of the writ
petitioners which shows that the writ petitioners are not at all
diligent in proceeding with the instant writ petition. It is further
submitted that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as
prayed for since the State has got no role in the temporary
appointment of the writ petitioners. It is further submitted on
behalf of the State respondents that since the employment of the
writ petitioners is purely temporary in nature and on contractual
basis they have got no right to the said post and, therefore, no relief
may be granted to the writ petitioners.
6. Upon consideration of the entire materials as placed before this
Court and after hearing the learned Advocates for the contending
parties if I look to some of the appointment letters which have been
issued by the respondent no. 4 authority to some of the writ
petitioners which are available at page nos. 17 and 18 of the
instant writ petition, it would reveal that the appointments of the
writ petitioners in the college of the respondent no. 4 authority is
purely temporary in nature and for a period of six months which is
renewable after six months with a break of service for one full
working day in between. There is also a clause that such
temporary service of the writ petitioners can be terminated by one
month's notice from either side.
7. Admittedly no document is forthcoming that after 2015 the
temporary service of the writ petitioners as guest lecturers in the
college of the respondent no. 4 has been extended by the
respondent no. 4 authority. On behalf of the writ petitioners much
stress was given upon the last line of the appointment letters. It
has been submitted that no termination notice has been served
upon the writ petitioners by the respondent no. 4 authority.
8. In considered view of this Court termination of service by one
month's notice from either side is required during the period of six
months when the writ petitioners were in temporary service.
9. At this juncture, I may safely place reliance upon the reported
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported decision of State
of U.P. Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla reported in (1991) 1 SCC 691
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a similar subject
held thus:
"Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee
has no right to hold the post and his services are liable
to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service
rules and the terms of contract of service.
******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *******
A temporary government servant has no right to hold the
post, his services are liable to be terminated by giving
him one month's notice without assigning any reason
either under the terms of the contract providing for such
termination or under the relevant statutory rules
regulating the terms and conditions of temporary
government servants."
10. The same view was taken in the reported decision in A.P. State
Feraration of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. P.W. Swaminathan
reported in (2001) 10 SCC 83 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
expressed the following:
"3. The legal position is fairly well settled that an order
of termination of a temporary employee or a
probationer or even a tenure employee, simpliciter
without casting any stigma may not be interfered with
by the court. But the court is not debarred from looking
at the attendant circumstances, namely, the
circumstances prior to the issuance of order of
termination to find out whether the alleged inefficiency
really was the motive for the order of termination or
formed the foundation for the same order. If the court
comes to a conclusion that the order was, if fact, the
motive, then obviously the order would not be interfered
with, but if the court comes to a conclusion that the so-
called inefficiency was the real foundation for passing of
order of termination, then obviously such an order
would be held to be penal in nature and must be
interfered with since the appropriate procedure has not
been followed."
11. No materials have been placed before this Court that the temporary
service of the writ petitioners have been renewed by the respondent
no. 4 authority after a certain point of time. There is no allegation
that the writ petitioners were terminated from their respective
services with some stigma. It is trite law that the service which is
purely temporary and contractual in nature, an employee has got
no right over such service.
12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that
the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for as
against the respondents.
13. This Court thus considers that the instant writ petition is devoid of
any merit and is thus dismissed. All pending interim applications
are also disposed of.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary
formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
Suvayan Ghosh
A.R. (Court)
