Sintu Mandal vs Abaninda Singh & Anr

The present contempt application has been preferred alleging violation of an order dated 4th May, 2015 passed in F.M.A 385 of 2014. A perusal of the said order reveals that the Court found from the records that candidates having lesser marks than the appellant have been appointed and that the appellant was unfairly treated and candidates having inferior academic backgrounds were successful. On the basis of such finding the Court directed the State to consider sympathetically the case of the appellant as a special case and to give him appointment, if he is otherwise eligible. Upon communication of the said order to the alleged contemnors, a memo dated 5th November, 2015 was issued by the then Chairman, South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council (in short, the said DPSC) seeking approval towards appointment of the petitioner in an appropriate vacancy. In reply thereto, the alleged contemnor no.1 issued a memo dated 6th April, 2016 directing the alleged contemnor no.2 to take steps for cancellation of the empanelment of the last two candidates and to send a fresh proposal towards appointment of the appellant and one Sri Tapas Halder. As in the said memo there were certain mistakes, rectification was sought for by the alleged contemnor no.2 by a letter dated 26th July, 2016 and in reply thereto, a memo dated 4th July, 2018 was issued by the alleged contemnor no.1.

Mr. Das learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no.1 submits the issue that as to whether an empanelled and appointed candidate can be removed from his/her service to accommodate any person, who secured more marks, was considered in an appeal being F.M.A 901 of 2011 and in the same a judgment was delivered observing that the appointments already made cannot be cancelled to accommodate fresh incumbents. In view thereof, the only course left open is to approve and appoint the petitioner in an existing vacancy in the concerned district.

When the matter last appeared for consideration, this Court directed the alleged contemnor no.1 to consider the issue towards appointment of the petitioner in any existing vacancy.

Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no.1 has placed before this Court a memo no.370-LP/1C/71-LP/2018(PART-I) dated 19th of September, 2019 issued by the alleged contemnor no.1 observing inter alia that 'the Chairman, DPSC should weigh all material on board to take a considered view on the subject so that the petitioner gets justice and his just deserts'. Let a copy of the said memo, as produced, be kept on record.

Presently there are existing vacancies in the concerned district. There is no dispute that the appellant fulfils the eligibility criteria and that candidates, who had secured less marks than the appellant, had been appointed. In the backdrop of the said facts, this Court requested the State to consider sympathetically the case of the appellant as a special case and to give him appointment.

Request made in a judicial order should be heeded to by the executive functionaries more so when such request was made by the Court upon arriving at a categoric finding that the appellant was unfairly treated and that candidates having inferior academic backgrounds were successful.

In view thereof, this Court directs the Council to send a fresh proposal for appointment of the appellant in an existing vacancy to the Commissioner of School Education within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Upon receipt of such proposal, the Commissioner of School Education shall approve the same and intimate the Council within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Upon receipt of such approval, the Council shall grant appointment to the appellant within a period of two weeks thereafter.

In view of the fact that there had been an endeavour on the part of the authorities to resolve the dispute and as it appears from the memo dated 19th of September, 2019 that the Commissioner of School Education had also instructed the alleged contemnor no.2 to weigh all materials on board to take a considered view on the subject so that the petitioner gets justice and his just deserts, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt application any further.

With the above observations and directions the contempt application is disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.