Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1033 (CAL)

Sk. Md. Abdul Aziz v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-16

DEBI PROSAD DEY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as organizing assistant teacher of Deriachak Jameul Ulum Siddiquia Senior Madrasah on 20th August, 1996. The petitioner has been rendering his duties as an assistant teacher of Theology and language group continuously without any break or interruption. That the authority concerned inspected the said Madrasah on 26th July, 2010. At that time the petitioner was present in the Madrasah premises and was performing his duties as an assistant teacher of theology and language group. The Director of Madrasah division approved the proposal for conversion of Madrasah under reference under his memo no. 202/(12)-ME dated 14th February, 2011. Thereafter the concerned authority approved the service of some of the existing staff of said Madrasah shiksha Kendra vide memo no. 798/Min-001/10 dated 26.11.2012 but the service of the petitioner was not approved. Dispute cropped up between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 with regard to their respective approval in the Madrasah under reference. The petitioner accordingly filed writ petition no. 23863(W) of 2014 (Sk. Ahmed Hossain & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) seeking redress of his grievances and His Lordship Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta disposed of such writ application by directing the director of Madrasah Education to consider the grievances of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order. In terms of such direction of his Lordship the Madrasah Education heard the interested parties and subsequently passed reasoned order vide memo no. 2444(ME) dated 25.11.2014 whereby and whereunder the Director of Madrasah Education did not approve the services of the present petitioner and Amirul Islam. In the meantime respondent no. 6 has also filed a writ application being WP 33396(W) of 2013 (Sk. Md. Nazimuddin Vs. State of W.B. & Ors). The said writ application has also been taken up for consideration along with the present writ petition. It may be mentioned here that writ petition no. 9352(W) of 2013 has also been taken up for consideration along with the present writ petition on the ground that the service of a group-D staff of said Deriachak Jameul Ulum Siddiquia Senior Madrasah, Vill + P.O. – Deriachak, P.S. – Kolaghat, District- Purba Medinipur has also not been confirmed/approved by the concerned authority. 9352(W) of 2013 has also been taken up for consideration along with the present writ petition on the ground that the service of a group-D staff of said Deriachak Jameul Ulum Siddiquia Senior Madrasah, Vill + P.O. – Deriachak, P.S. – Kolaghat, District- Purba Medinipur has also not been confirmed/approved by the concerned authority. On careful consideration of all the writ applications mentioned herein above and after hearing learned advocates for the parties it transpires that director of Madrasah Education by his memo no. 2444-ME dated 25.11.2014 did not approve the service of the present petitioner and Sk. Amirul Islam whose approval of service appeared to be given in contravention of the guideline issued to Madrasah Sikhsha Kendra(senior Madrasah type) issued by minority affairs and Madrasah Education Department, West Bengal vide GO No.130- JS (MD)/09 dated 15.12.2009. The Director of Madrasah Education thereafter called for clarification under what circumstances and rules the approval of the aforesaid two were given. 2. The petitioner in writ petition no. 33396(W) of 2013 has on the other hand raised question with regard to the memo no. 986/Min-001/10 dated 21st March, 2003 being annexure P-7 in respect of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P. NO. 27933(W) of 2015) against 9th post in theology and language group of Deriachak Jameul Ulum Siddiquia Madhyamik Siksha Kendra (Senior Madrasah type) village and post office – Deriachak, P.S. – Kolaghat, District – Purba Medinipur, and has prayed for as to why the candidature of the petitioner shall not be approved with effect from 1st February, 2011 by setting aside the aforesaid memo. It transpires from the writ application that the petitioner has challenged the approval of Sk. Md. Abdul Aziz (petitioner in writ petition no. 27933(W) of 2015). 3. It would not be justified as well as desirable to look into the factual aspect while deciding the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apparent from order passed by the Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal vide memo no. 2444(ME) dated 25.11.2014 that the Director of Madrasah Education while refusing to accept the approval of Sk. Md. Abdul Aziz and Sk. Amirul Islam did not conclude the matter but thereafter called for clarification under what circumstances and rules the approval of the aforesaid two staff were given. In the meantime, Md. Nazimuddin has also raised some questions about the approval of Sk. Md. Md. Abdul Aziz and Sk. Amirul Islam did not conclude the matter but thereafter called for clarification under what circumstances and rules the approval of the aforesaid two staff were given. In the meantime, Md. Nazimuddin has also raised some questions about the approval of Sk. Md. Abdul Aziz in writ petition no. 33396(W) of 2013. It is apparent from the aforesaid order of the Director of Madrasah Education that such action of Director of Madrasah Education shall abide by the decision of writ petition no. 33396(W) of 2013. Another writ application has been filed by one Sk. Abdul Rasid one alleged group- D staff of the said Madrasah for his approval. 4. Having considered the submission of both the parties as well as learned Advocate for the state it appears that all the writ petitions are required to be sent to the Director of Madrasah Education with a direction to decide the matter raised by the petitioners by considering the said writ application as their respective representations. 5. On that score, the order passed by Director of Madrasah Education in memo no. 2444(ME) dated 25.11.2014 is not final and accordingly Director of Madrasah Education is directed to consider the above named three writ applications as the representations of the respective parties and to decide about the claim of the respective parties by passing a reasoned order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order along with all the documents to be produced by the respective parties and after giving them an opportunity of hearing. 6. The writ application is thus disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. 7. The writ petition no. 33396(W) of 2013 and writ petition no. 9352(W) of 2013 shall also govern by this order and are accordingly disposed of. 8. No order as to costs.