Bharati Baul (Mondal) vs State Of West Bengal &Ors.

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

It relates to the appointment of a Sahayeika in Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra Nijtaraf in Mekhliganj, Cooch Behar. This centre is situated in an island in

the middle of the Teesta River and can accommodate one Sahayeika. To cut a long story short, 26 Sahayeikas were working in the area on or before

3rd December, 2013 when Paschimbanga Rajya Shishu Shiksha Mission informed the Cooch Behar Zilla Parishad that the appointment of 22

Sahayeikas had been approved. The appointment of other 4 Sahayeikas, Smt. Santwana Barman, Smt. Lila Barman, Smt. Pratima Barman and the

appellant Smt. Bharati Mandal (Baul) (Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra, Mekhliganj Panchayat Samity) were not approved. As far as the appellant is

concerned the reason for her rejection was that she did not fulfil the age criterion. She was about 25 years when she was appointed as a Sahayeika in

Nijtaraf Gram Panchayat of Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra. On 26th November, 2010 the Block Development Officer, Mekhliganj Development Block

wrote to the Secretary, Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra stating that the Sthayee Siksha Samity, Cooch Behar Zilla Parishad had taken a resolution on

19th November, 2010 approving the selection of the appellant as a Sahayeika.

He directed the Secretary to issue an appointment letter in her favour. The appointment letter was duly issued and the appellant worked as a

Sahayeika from 1st December, 2010. The reason why in spite of her lower age she was appointed as Sahayeika is to be found in the letter dated 9th

October, 2009 of the Block Development Officer, Mekhliganj, Cooch Behar to the Cooch Behar Zilla Parisad. It was stated therein that as the

Nijtaraf Shishushiksha Kendra was situated in an island on the Teesta river and the appellant was the only Sahayeika who lived and could work there,

she should be appointed to that post. It appears that she was allowed to work by relaxing her age.

Sometime after 2010 the Government of West Bengal took a policy decision to abolish the Managing Committees of Shishushiksha Kendras. A

Committee headed by the Block Development Officer consisting of five members was appointed to look after and to manage the affairs of a

Shishushiksha Kendra. The Paschimbanga Rajya Shishu Shiksha Mission was also set up. The appellant’s honorarium was stopped from March,

2012. The letter dated 3rd December, 2013 of Paschimbanga Rajya Shishu Shiksha Mission to the Cooch Behar Zilla Parisad stated that, inter alia, her

engagement had not been approved by the P & RD department. On 3rd November, 2014, the Shiksha Sanskrity Tathya & Sthayee Samity took a

resolution that they had no objection if the appellantBharati Mandal was reengaged as a Sahayeika, Mekhliganj Panchayat Samity. It noted that

Bharati had made an application for reemployment in Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra. The other three Sahayeikas who could have contended for the

post had given their consent to Bharati’s reemployment.

Now, two fundamental questions have to be answered by this Court. The first is whether reappointment of the appellant by relaxing her age criterion

was in order? If it is found in order whether stoppage of her salary from March, 2012, was not in order. Whether there were enough circumstances to

warrant her reemployment?

The fact is that from 2010 till date, the appellant has been working as a Sahayeika in Nijtaraf Gram Panchayat under the Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra

in Mekhliganj, Cooch Behar under the set up existing at that point of time. She appears to have been regularly appointed. In our opinion, there was

enough reason for relaxation of the age criterion in her case because this Gram Panchayat was situated in an island on the Teesta river. She was the

only Sahayeika who was a resident of that island. If any other Sahayeika was appointed she would have to cross the river at least during the rainy

season to reach this island and do the work of a Sahayeika. If the age criterion had been relaxed in her case, to give her the appointment as to ensure

long and continuous service, it was a very reasonable decision taken by the Zilla Parisad at that point of time.

The letter of 3rd December, 2013, of Paschimbanga Rajya Shishu Shiksha Mission proposing to confirm the appointment of 22 Sahayeikas similarly

appointed as the appellant and proposing not to approve the appellant’s appointment did not take into account the relevant factors as stated above.

Keeping the Shishushiksha mission in a running condition is the obligation of the Government. No other Sahayeika, was willing to work in that

particular gram panchayat. Otherwise they would not have given their consent to the appellant working there. This justifies the reemployment of the

appellant.

Moreover, three Sahayeikas whose service had not been approved, approached this Court by filing a writ application WP 875(W) of 2015 when the

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Dasadhikari directed the authorities to pay the outstanding honorarium to all them. The appellant says that

these Sahayeikas have been paid their outstanding dues. Therefore, there is no reason why the outstanding dues of the appellant should not be paid.

The state under Article 21A of the Constitution owes a duty to provide free education to children from the age of six years to forteen years. It is

trying to do so through the Shishushiksha Mission. They have the obligation to see that a particular Mission runs without interruption.

In the above circumstances the respondents were under a duty to ensure that the service of the only Sahayeika willing to provide service to the

Nijtaraf Gram Panchayat under the Nazrul Shishushiksha Kendra was retained and not interfered with. The letter of the Paschimbanga Rajya Shishu

Shiksha Mission dated 3rd December, 2013 dispensing with the service of the appellant was wrongful and is quashed. I direct the respondents to

immediately regularise and restore the service of the appellant w.e.f. 1st December, 2010 till this date and permanent reemployment from the date

grant her fresh as a Sahayeika in the Nijtaraf Gram Panchayat within eight weeks of communication of this order.

The respondents shall make payment of the entire arrear honorarium of the appellant within the aforesaid period. This appeal and the writ application

are accordingly allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 13th December, 2017 is set aside. No order as to costs. Certified photocopy of this

Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

I Agree.

(Md. MUMTAZ KHAN, J.) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (I.P. MUKERJI, J)

LATER:

Judgment in the above appeal was made ready a little before the recent cease work called by the lawyers of this Court. It was not placed for

judgment because of the cease work. The lawyer aggrieved by the judgment might not have been able to be present to ask for stay of operation

thereof. The application for a certified copy of the order may not have been submitted in time.

However, as the cease work continued without any prospect of the Court resuming its normal functions in the foreseeable future, on and from 5th

April, 2018 these matters were placed in the list “For Judgmentâ€. Nevertheless, judgment was not delivered, hoping that the cease work would

end. This Court is of the opinion that it is high time to deliver the judgment in the interest of the parties and in the interest of justice. A judgment in the

above appeal has been delivered today (26.04.2018). Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with

all requisite formalities.