Moumita Halder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 21st May, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3.

Mr. Bari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with others approached this Court earlier by a writ petition, being W.P. 16421 (W) of 2018, alleging inaction on the part of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein in terms of the notification dated 2nd November, 2017. By an order dated 3rd September, 2018 the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 herein to take a decision in terms of the notification dated 2nd November, 2017. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, Mr. Bari further submits that all the writ petitioners in the earlier writ petition, who are similarly situated with the petitioner herein, were granted appointment pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ petition but the petitioner's claim has been rejected by the order dated 21st May, 2019.

Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the Board denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and prays for leave to file an affidavit-in-opposition.

In reply, Mr. Bari submits that in similar matters this Court has relegated the same for fresh consideration upon setting aside the orders similar to the order impugned in the present writ petition.

Upon hearing Mr. Bari, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the Board and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order needs to be revisited by the respondent no. 3 since the particulars of records, on the basis of which the decision was taken, have not been disclosed in the impugned order. The veracity of the statements made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition also needs to be considered by the respondent no. 3.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside on the said limited ground. The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner's claim afresh and to pass a reasoned order and to communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

As the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for affidavits, the other allegations levelled in the same shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents.

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

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