Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 966 (CAL)

ABALA MAITY (DAS) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2016-12-06

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sahidullah Munshi, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has made out a case that being a Madhyamik Passed lady and being considered eligible and having requisite qualification as required for the purpose of engagement as ‘Sahayika’ the petitioner applied before the concerned authority and she was engaged as ‘Sahayika’ in Kutki Bagan Sahi Sishu Siksha Kendra for the academic session 2002-03 on 4th June, 2002. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that she is a trained ‘Sahayika’ and subsequently, from time to time her engagement as ‘Sahayika’ of the said Sishu Siksha Kendra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said S.S.K.’) was renewed till academic session 2007-08, i.e., 30th April, 2008. It has been stated that the tenure of her engagement as ‘Sahayika’ in the said S.S.K. was till 2007. The authority did not renew her engagement although, she continued to discharge her service till 25th May, 2007. It has been claimed that on 26th May, 2007 the Secretary of the said S.S.K. asked the petitioner not to sign the Attendance Register of the said S.S.K. As a result, the petitioner was debarred from signing the Register of the said S.S.K. as ‘Sahayika’. The petitioner made several representations to the Secretary and President of the said S.S.K. and lastly, on 25th May, 2007, before the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said S.S.K. but the said authorities refused to accept the representation of the petitioner. It has been admitted by the petitioner that the said S.S.K. did not renew the contract due to her ill-behaviour towards students and other persons associated with the said S.S.K. and that an enquiry was conducted by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. In pursuance whereof, a report was submitted before the concerned authority on 19th June 2007. It has been stated that an enquiry was conducted by the 5-men Committee and on 14th August, 2007 in a meeting of the Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity of the concerned Panchayat Samity approved the decision of the Managing Committee not to renew the contract of the petitioner. It has been stated that an enquiry was conducted by the 5-men Committee and on 14th August, 2007 in a meeting of the Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity of the concerned Panchayat Samity approved the decision of the Managing Committee not to renew the contract of the petitioner. From Annexure P-2 at page 23 of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was engaged by an agreement executed on 4th June, 2002 and, according to the terms of the said agreement, it could be in force till 3rd May, 2003, i.e., for a period of one year. According to the petitioner, the said engagement was renewed time to time but, ultimately, no further renewal was made after 30th April, 2008. Previously, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.19518 (W) of 2010 and by an order dated 19th July, 2011, a Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the written note prepared by the Block Development Officer on the subject. It has been held by the Hon’ble Single Bench that the Managing Committee of the concerned S.S.K. in a meeting held on 2nd May, 2007 decided not to renew her contract due to her ill-behaviour towards students and other persons associated with the said S.S.K. The Block Development Officer, Narayangarh, received an application from the writ petitioner on 29th May, 2007 which was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur and based on the same an enquiry was conducted by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat who submitted a report on 19th June, 2007. In the said report it was categorically stated that the writ petitioner’s ill-behaviour was affecting the activities of the S.S.K. It was also held by the Hon’ble Single Bench that an enquiry was conducted by a 5-men committee and the enquiry report corroborated the views of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. It has been held by the Hon’ble Single Bench that on 14th August, 2007, the decision of the Managing Committee of the concerned S.S.K. regarding non-renewal of contract of the writ petitioner for her ill-behaviour towards students and others associated with the said S.S.K. was approved in a meeting of Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity of the concerned Panchayat Samity. It has been held by the Hon’ble Single Bench that on 14th August, 2007, the decision of the Managing Committee of the concerned S.S.K. regarding non-renewal of contract of the writ petitioner for her ill-behaviour towards students and others associated with the said S.S.K. was approved in a meeting of Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity of the concerned Panchayat Samity. On consideration of such fact the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to dismiss the writ petition holding, inter alia, that the same was patently misconceived and not maintainable in law. After such order of dismissal was passed on 19th July, 2011, the petitioner ventured to get copies of certain documents which were relied on by the concerned Block Development Officer while filing a written note before the Hon’ble Single Bench. The petitioner has placed certain documents obtained by him through an application made under Right to Information Act. He submits that, although, the Hon’ble Court held that an enquiry was made, report was submitted, but there are factual inconsistencies in the report which was filed by the Block Development Officer and which was considered by the Court in passing an order of dismissal on 19th July, 2011. It has been alleged by the petitioner in this writ petition that, although, certain facts were narrated in the report of the Block Development Officer but when the petitioner has made his application under the Right to Information Act, the Block Development Officer has given a reply to the petitioner that those informations are not available with his record. From paragraph 14 of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner filed an application on 19th September, 2011 under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Block Development Officer concerned was requested to supply certain informations, namely, (i) Report of the Pradhan on 19th June, 2007. (ii) Enquiry report of 5th June, 2007. (iii) Report of Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity, Narayangarh Panchayt Samity. (iv) Any Resolution taken by the Managing Committee against the ill-behaviour of Smt. Abala Das. (v) Copy of the notice issued to Smt. Abala Das. (vi) Copy of the report sent to District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur. (vii) Copy of the report dated 29th May, 2007 sent to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur. (viii) Report of the Managing Committee of Kutki Bagan Sahi Sishu Siksha Kendra about the decision. 2. (v) Copy of the notice issued to Smt. Abala Das. (vi) Copy of the report sent to District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur. (vii) Copy of the report dated 29th May, 2007 sent to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur. (viii) Report of the Managing Committee of Kutki Bagan Sahi Sishu Siksha Kendra about the decision. 2. With regard to the said queries, an answer was given by Joint Block Development Officer and State Public Information Officer, Narayangarh Development Block, by his Memo dated 19th October, 2011. In respect of query no.1 it has been stated that Annexure 1 be perused. Annexure 1 has been annexed at page 69 of the writ petition and the same appears to be a report of the Pradhan filed on 19th June, 2009 addressed to the Block Development Officer, Narayangarh Block. With regard to the second question, the Block Development Officer has informed that no enquiry was conducted on 5th June, 2007 and the other informations have also been supplied by the State Public Information Officer. In respect of the question no.3 the said Officer said that information was asked for without mentioning any date. Therefore, information cannot be given by the authority. So far query no.4 is concerned, it has been stated that the petitioner did not mention the name of the committee that is also an incomplete query. So far item no.5, it has been informed that no notice was served to Smt. Abala Maity from the end of the Block Development Officer, Narayangarh. So far query no.6, it has been stated that no report was sent to the District Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur from Block Development Officer, Narayangarh. From query no.7 it appears that no report was sent to Sub-Divisional Officer, Kharagpur from the Block Development Officer, Narayangarh on 29th May, 2007. With regard to the query no.8 it has been stated that no report of Kutki Bagan Sahi Sishu Siksha Kendra Managing Committee was available with the Block Development Officer, Narayangarh. 3. On perusal of the queries made by the petitioner it appears that the State Information Officer supplied the answer to the queries as far as it is practicable. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the documents which were relied upon before this Court were not on record before the Block Development Officer. 3. On perusal of the queries made by the petitioner it appears that the State Information Officer supplied the answer to the queries as far as it is practicable. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the documents which were relied upon before this Court were not on record before the Block Development Officer. Such statement is falsified by the petitioner of her own showing of the report of the Pradhan dated 19th June, 2007 and the Resolution of the Siksha, Sanskriti, Tathya-O-Krira Sthayee Samity adopted on 9th June, 2007. These documents were considered by this Court and on the basis thereof, held that the writ petition was misconceived and no relief could be granted to the petitioner irrespective of whether any enquiry was conducted or not by the 5-men committee. The petitioner’s grievance is that although, this Hon’ble Court, referred to the report of the 5-men committee and when she has asked for copy of such report it was informed by the State Information Officer that no such report is available on record, therefore, she is suspicious of there being any actual enquiry by any 5-men committee. According to her, the Block Development Officer filed an incorrect report before the Court and mislead this Hon’ble Court by giving false information. 4. On perusal of the materials whatever has been disclosed before this Court in this writ petition it appears that this Hon’ble Court, without relying upon the said 5-men committee report, passed the order of dismissal. Therefore, this Writ Court cannot be invited to investigate into the disputed question of fact and such scrutiny is not desirable. More so when a Co-ordinate Bench has already dismissed a writ petition on merit holding that since the Managing Committee decided to discontinue the engagement of the petitioner as a ‘Sahayika’ in the school concerned, there is no further scope to pass any order in this writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed.