Shyamoli Manna (Das) and Anr. vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.

The appellants have challenged impugned judgment and order dated 14th January, 2016, passed in W.P. 26846(W) of 2012 (Shyamoli Manna (Das) and Anr. -vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors.), inter alia, on the grounds that the appellants were not terminated but the findings of the learned trial Judge that the appellants did not protest contemporaneously to the authorities with regard to the so-called termination of their servaices assuming that the services of the petitioners were terminated and the petitioners did not leave the same voluntarily, that the appellants in these hard days of umemployment had been rendereing services in the institution and the learned trial Court ought to have considered their case for consideration for their re-engagement in the institution.

It appears from the order impugned and from the inspection report of the District Mass Education Extension Officer South 24-Parganas (in-charge) that the writ petitioners, including others were engaged as non-teaching staff but without the approval of the Mass Education Extension Directorate, Government of West Bengal. On inspection it was found that the writ petitioners were engaged after submission of application for sponsorship of the institution to the Mass Education Extension Directorate without taking any clearance of the M.E.E. Directorate, Government of West Bengal. The said report reads thus: "As the school authority have engaged the said 8 non-teaching staff after submission of application for sponsorship to the Mass Education Extension Directorate without taken any clearance of the M.E.E. Directorate, Govt. of Westd Bengal so they have broken the existing G.O. norms which have been mentioned in G.O. No. 833-Edn. (MEE), dt. 13.9.96. At this stage the names of the aforesaid Non-teaching staff may not be considered during the time of sponsorship."

It reflects that as the institution is the only institution for the handicapped students which is situated in the remote Sundarban area in the district of South 24-Parganas, for the interest of the handicapped students of Sundarban area, the case of sponsorship of the institution was recommended. As per the report of the aforesaid District Mass Education Extension Officer the institution was sponsored and it was after the school being sponsored, the writ petitioners submitted their application for re-engagement in the said school.

On consideration of rival contentions of the parties and the materials annexed to the writ petition, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the school authorities had managed to run the school for physically handicapped with two persons leaving the services of the writ petitioners and not applying for more than 4 years, the petitioners had no right to approach the writ court in the year 2012 for their absorption.

We do not find any rule of the State authority to deal with such a situation with regard to absorption and re-engagement of the petitioners. Thus, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference since it has been rightly observed that the writ petitioners, the appellants herein, who had left the institution voluntarily, had approached for their re-engagement in service after the school was sponsored.

In the context above, the appeal and connected application stand dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.