Allowed

Amit Patra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Feb 2021WPA/918/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge writ petition challenged an order of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education that excluded teachers from voting rights. The High Court held the order was non-reasoned regarding two specific petitioners and directed the Board to grant an opportunity of hearing to all parties and pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; direction to grant opportunity of hearing to all parties and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Amit Patra and Ors. Vs State of West… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

09.02.2021 ss

¶2

W.P.A. 918 of 2021

¶3

( Through Video Conference )

¶4

Amit Patra & ors.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶7

Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati

¶8

Mr. Satyajit Mahata

¶9

…. For the petitioners

¶10

Mr. B. P. Vaisya Mr. Ranjan Saha

¶11

… For the State

¶12

Mr. Sarajit Sen Mr. Tapas Singha Roy … For the respondent no.5

¶13

Mr. Pradip Kr. Tarafder Mr. Sambuddha Dutta

¶14

… for the respondent no.4

¶15

Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya … for the W.B.B.S.E.

¶16

Mr. Soumyen Datta Mr. Sambhu Nath Sardar … for the respondent no.6

¶17

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education dated December 4, 2020 pursuant to an order passed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated March 2, 2020.

¶18

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the order deals with eight of the original petitioners in the earlier writ petition and this does not refer to two of

¶19

¶20

the petitioners therein. These petitioners are petitioner nos.1 and 2 in the present writ petition.

¶21

It is further to be noted that the seven petitioners have produced an authorisation letter before this Court after the Court had directed them to do so on an earlier occasion.

¶22

The relevant portion of the order passed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is delineated below :

¶23

“FINDINGS : After going through all relevant papers and documents and taking into consideration the submissions and counter submissions that have been put forward by the teaching and non-teaching employees of the school, the school management and others, it is noted that the disputed election of Teachers’ Representative and Non Teachers’ Representative were held as per schedule after exclusion of names mentioned in the D.I’s memo dated 26.09.2018. Now the focal point of discord is the nature of appointment of the said 9 teaching and 1 non-teaching staff of the school—whether they are temporary or permanent employees of the institution. It is noted that in CAN No.155 of 2019, applicant no.1 to 6, i.e. 1)Soma Nath, 2) Namra Bose, 3) Supriyo Nandi, 4) Suparna Das, 5) Sreeparna Bhattacharya and 6) Mousumi Das (Dey) have been mentioned as teachers of preparatory classes for V (Standard III and IV). Applicant no.7, Pubali Basu has been mentioned as a part-time teacher and applicant no.8, Rahul Mondal has been mentioned as part-time office assistant of the school. Perusing the condition

¶24

¶25

laid down in the appointment letter, it is crystal clear that the said teaching and non-teaching employees were not permanent employees of the institution at that material point of time when the disputed Teachers’ Representative and Non Teachers’ Representative election was held.

¶26

Hence, I, President, WBBSE, is of the view that the teaching and non-teaching staff mentioned in the D.I’s memo dated 26.09.2018, have no voting rights as they are not permanent employees and therefore, declare the said Teachers’ Representative and Non Teachers’ Representative Election as valid one.”

¶27

The order above clearly misses out specifically dealing with the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and is a nonreasoned order in relation to the two petitioners. One is not able to comprehend as to why the order specifically deals only with eight of the teachers and non-teaching staff. It chooses not to specifically deal with these two petitioners. After dealing specifically with eight of the teachers, a generic line has been written stating that upon perusal of the conditions laid down in the appointment letter, it is crystal clear that the said teaching and non-teaching staff were not permanent staff of the institution at the material point of time.

¶28

In my view, such statement alone is non-speaking and does not qualify as a reasoned order.

¶29

In light of the above reasons, I quash and set aside the order impugned and direct the West Bengal Board of

¶30

¶31

Secondary Education to grant an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners as well as to all the interested respondents and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from date. The reasoned order is to be communicated to all the interested parties within a period of one week thereafter.

¶32

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

All parties are to act on website copy of this order.

¶34

Authorisation letter filed be kept with the record.

¶35

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

Amit Patra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Patra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujit Kumar Saha & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sankari Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Achira Halder Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

MD Meheboob Alam Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ganesh Chandra Das Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mityl Chakravorty and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.