Dismissed¶¶27

Mostafa Karim & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC17 Mar 2025FMA/4437/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family definition S.14K(c) WBLR Act 1955; Teesta Project land acquisition; relatives of land loser denied EC-category employment as primary school teachers under DPSC Jalpaiguri; District Magistrate Jalpaiguri reasoned order; Single Bench judgment dated 24.04.2014; Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 716 pp. 531-532 referred; West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971; appeals dismissed, interim orders vacated, no costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court is in complete agreement with the views of the Single Bench that the appellants do not come within the definition of family under the WBLR Act, 1955 and consequently are not entitled to jobs under the EC category in the recruitment process of primary teachers by the DPSC, Jalpaiguri. ¶¶24

Mostafa Karim & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

17.03.2025 Court No.13 Item No.3 to 5 sudipta

¶2

FMA 4437 of 2015

¶3

Mostafa Karim & Ors. Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

With

¶6

FMA 4922 of 2015

¶7

Kalibul Rahaman & Anr. Vs.

¶8

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶9

With

¶10

FMA 7 of 2016

¶11

Mostafa Karim & Ors. Vs.

¶12

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶13

Mr. A. Sengupta Mr. Tirthankar Dey

¶14

…for the appellants

¶15

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy.

¶16

…for the State.

¶17

The instant appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 24^th April, 2014 delivered by the Single Bench of this Court.

¶18

The writ petitioners/appellants in the three writ petitions are admittedly cousin brother, maternal uncle, uncle nephew, grand-father declared as uncle and grand-father sister who claimed to be

¶19

¶20

family members of the land loser. The land was acquired for the Teesta Project.

¶21

As such the writ petitioners/appellants in the three appeals, claimed employment as primary school teachers under the DPSC, Jalpaiguri in the EC category.

¶22

The claims were considered by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. The DM by a reasoned order has found each of the appellants not to be family members and hence not entitled to the benefit of employment under the EC category.

¶23

The single Bench relied upon the definition of family under Section 14K(c) of the WBLR Act, 1955, as also the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules of 1971. Reference is also made to the definition of family under Section 14K(c) upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India reported in (1980) 4 SCC 716 , particularly pages 531 and 532 thereto.

¶24

This Court is in complete agreement with the views of the Single Bench that the appellants do not come within the definition of family under the WBLR Act, 1955 were and consequently not entitled to jobs under the EC category in the

¶25

¶26

recruitment process of primary teachers by the DPSC, Jalpaiguri.

¶27