SUREKHA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails an order dated 4th July, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda being Memo no.242 (1)/G ("the impugned order").

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner alongwith the respondent no.6 (Smt. Arti Sarkar) and one Smt. Phoolan Das had participated in a selection process for the post of a Matron of the Sadlichak High School (the school). Subsequently, an interview was held on 29th December, 2004. It is alleged by the petitioner that after the interview one Muktasahi Nirajuddin, the Teacher-in-Charge of the school along with one Fazlul Haque, the then Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school had demanded a donation of Rs.3 (three) lakhs in lieu of the name of the petitioner being included in the top position of the panel. The petitioner further alleges that pursuant to the demand for donation the father of the petitioner had sold different plots of his land and immediately arranged a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs which was handed over to the then Teacher-in-Charge with a request to obtain some time to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, subsequently the Teacher-in-Charge and the then Secretary of the school upon the failure of the petitioner to procure and pay the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- did not enlist the name of the petitioner as serial number one (1) in the panel for the aforementioned post. It is also alleged on behalf of the petitioner that as far as the petitioner has been able to ascertain the sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs handed over by the petitioner had also not been deposited in the School Development Fund. The petitioner also alleges that, an amount of Rs.75,000/- was also demanded from Smt. Phoolan Das in lieu of the same position which had been offered to the petitioner. The petitioner further alleges that, since the respondent no.6 had paid the entire sum of Rs.3,00,000/-he has secured the position as serial number one (1) on the panel. Consequently, the name of the respondent no.6 was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Malda for approval.

(3.) Upon being informed of the empanelment of the respondent no.6, the petitioner had made a representation before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Malda narrating all the facts pertaining to the monetary transaction and raising an objection to the legality and the validity of the panel forwarded by the school.