Md. Washim Akram vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

The appeal and the application have been presented questioning the order dated 4th April, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ petition. The writ petition, being WP 5042(W) of 2012 was dismissed thereby confirming the order passed by the District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Mission, Murshidabad dated 5th March, 2012. Both the appeal and the injunction application are treated as on day's list and disposed of by the common order.

Matter revolves around appointment of Additional Para Teacher in Puthimary Primary School (hereinafter the 'said school') in the District of Murshidabad. A panel was prepared for appointment in the said post of Additional Para Teacher wherein one Md. Washim Akram, the appellant herein, stood first. The panel contains three candidates; namely, Md. Washim Akram (1st), Mr. Jasrul Haque (2nd ) and Ahammad Hossain (3rd ).

Previously, two writ petitions were filed - one by Md. Washim Akram and another by Md. Jasrul Haque. Both the writ petitions were disposed by a common order dated 15th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the following direction was given:

"The District Project Officer, S.S.M., Murshidabad, to reconsider the said objection after taking into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner in support of her residential status and shall pass the reasoned order.

The said authority shall afford the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other empanelled candidates at the time of disposal of the said objection.

Entire exercise shall be completed by the said authority within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition being W.P. No. 3403(W) of 2009 is, thus, disposed of."

In terms of the direction as contained in the said order dated 15th September, 2011, the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, Murshidabad heard all the interested parties and passed final order with regard to the entitlement of the appellant herein to be appointed in the said post of Additional Para Teacher in the said school. The relevant part of the order of the District Project Officer is quoted below:

"In circumstances to above and in presence of controversy about residential status of Md Washim Akram it is necessary to consider the voter list 2006 of 51 Aurangabad Assembly Constituency bearing part no 53 sl no 1300 as produced by Md Jasrul Haque to ascertain the residential status of Md Washim Akram for the material period (2006) as per sub clause 3(ga) of guideline (2006) made by the district Sarva Shiksha Mission Committee for the purpose of the engagement of Additional Para Teacher. According to that voter list Md Washim Akram, S/o Md Maniruddin was an ordinary resident of village - Sahebnagar under Bhasaipaikar Gram Panchayat. Moreover Md Washim Akram could not produce any voter list of 2006 of part no 66 which is for the Puthimary village of 51 Auragabad Assembly Constituency. On the other hand the name of Jasrul Haque is enrolled in the voter list (2006) of part no 66 of 51 Aurangabad Assembly Constituency at sl no 184 of Puthimary Village. Hence as per sub clause 3(ga) of guideline (2006) made by the District Sarva Shiksha Mission Committee for the purpose of the engagement of Additional Para Teacher Washim Akram was not found to be eligible to apply for the post of Additional Para Teacher for Puthimary Primary School at Dogachi Napara VIII VEC, Dogachi Napara Gram Panchayat under Dhuliyan CLRC.

Therefore I am constrained to conclude that, the candidature of Md Washim Akram be cancelled herewith and thus the school authority is instructed herewith to engage Md Jasrul Hoque (2nd empanelled candidate of approved panel earlier bearing memo no 744 / SSM / 06 dated 30-12-2006) in place of Md Washim Akram at the post of Additional Para Teacher at the post of Puthimary Primary School. The School authority also instructed to send a compliance report there after.

The case is thus disposed of and the order of the Hon'ble High Court is complied with.

All concerned be informed accordingly."

It has rightly been decided by the District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Mission, Murshidabad, that said Md Washim Akram during the relevant period of time in the year 2006, as per relevant clause, namely, Sub-Clause 3(ga) of the Guideline of 2006 made by the district Sarva Shiksha Mission Committee for the purpose of engagement of Additional Para Teacher, was an ordinary resident of Village Sahebnagar under Bhasaipaikar Gram Panchayat and not the resident of Village Puthimary under Dogachi Napara Gram Panchayat. Prior to arriving at such a conclusion the District Project Officer while determining the residential status of the appellant herein considered the fact whether the name of the appellant was entered in the voter list of 2006 of 51 Aurangabad Assembly Constituency as produced by Jasrul Haque to ascertain the residential status of the appellant. On consideration of the said voter list, it was found that the appellant was an ordinary resident of Village Sahebnagar under Bhasaipaikar Gram Panchayat. In addition thereto, it appears that the appellant could not produce before the concerned District Project Officer any voter list of 2006 of Part No. 66 which was for Puthimary village of 51 Aurangabad Assembly Constituency.

On appreciation of facts of the present case before us, we also find it apposite that, in order to decide the residential status of a candidate it is required to be considered whether name of the appellant was rightly entered into the Voter list in 2006 of Part No.66 which was for Puthimary Village of 51 Aurangabad Assembly Constituency or not. Inclusion of name of the appellant in the relevant part of the voter list in the present case, is a relevant consideration to ascertain the residential status of the appellant. Absence of the name of the appellant in the relevant part of the Electoral Roll, goes long way to show that at the material point of time when the selection process was initiated by the respondent authorities for filling up the post of Additional Para Teacher in the said School, the appellant was not the resident of Puthimary Village.

In addition thereto, another aspect may not lose our sight that the Pradhan of Dogachi Napara.Gram Panchayat also declared vide its Memo No.252 dated 15th January, 2007 that due to his mistake he issued residential certificate in favour of the appellant who was the resident of Sahebnagar under Bhasaipaikar Gram Panchayat. It has also been recorded in the order of the concerned District Project Officer that one Touab Ali, member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly issued residential certificate dated 9th September, 2007 in favour of the appellant declaring his residential address as Village Puthimari, P.O. Chaksapur, P.S. Samserganj and the same member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly on a subsequent date issued another residential certificate dated 18th October, 2011 in favour of the appellant stating his residential address as Village Sahebnagar, P.O. Bhasaipaikar, P.S. Samserganj.

Considering the certificates issued by the Pradhan and subsequent withdrawal of the same as well as the contradictory certificates issued by the same member of the Legislative Assembly dated 9th September, 2007 as well as 18th October, 2011, we have no other option but to rely only upon the fact whether name of the applicant was correctly entered into the Electoral Roll in respect of the relevant part of Aurangabad Assembly Constituency or not in the year 2006 when the Selection process was initiated.

On appreciating the facts of the case as placed before us and upon consideration of the contents of the order of the District Project Officer, we do not find the name of the appellant in the relevant part of the Electoral Roll of Aurangabad Assembly Constituency in order to establish the fact that the appellant was the resident of Village Puthimary, P.O. Chaksapur, P.S. Samserganj.

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Mission, Murshidabad dated 5th March, 2012 as well as the impugned order dated 4th April, 2012 of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal and the application stand dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.