SAHJAHAN MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Siksha Samprasarak in English in Gobindapur Madhyamik Siksha Kendra under Raipur Gram Panchayat, within Hariharpara Panchayat Samity in the District of Murshidabad. Though the petitioner had the requisite eligibility for the said post but he could not participate in the selection process for the said post for want of wide publication of the said recruitment process. It is alleged that the concerned authority completed the said selection process without following the relevant guidelines and/or orders issued by the Government in this regard and ultimately the respondent no.10 was selected for his engagement as Siksha Samprasarak in English in the said M.S.K. However, the selection of the respondent no.10 was ultimately challenged in a writ petition being W.P. No. 16909(W) of 2008 (Afajuddin Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) and on the basis of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition, the District Nodal Officer, S.S.K. and M.S.K., Murshidabad, considered the complain regarding the irregularities allegedly committed by the concerned authorities in the process of selection of the respondent no.10 as Siksha Samprasarak in English in the said M.S.K. after hearing the interested person and ultimately held on 30th December, 2008 that the said selection was made without following the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard. THE said District Nodal Officer found that wide publicity of employment notification was not made by the Managing Committee of the said M.S.K. Various other irregularities in the process of selection of the said respondent no.10 were detected by the said District Nodal Officer as various Government orders and/or Guidelines were not followed in the process of such selection. Accordingly, the said District Nodal Officer passed an order by disengaging the respondent no.10 herein and the concerned Block Development Officer, Hariharpara was directed to see that the selection of a Samprasarak in English is strictly made in accordance with Government orders and guidelines with a further rider that the candidature of Afjuddin Sk., who was the writ petitioner in the W.P. No. 16909(W) of 2008, should be considered along with the others.

(2.) THE said order remains unchallenged. THE parties to the said proceeding including the concerned authorities accepted the said order. Even though the said order was not challenged by the concerned authority but still then the respondent no.10 herein, in fact, was not disengaged and he was allowed to render his service as Siksha Samprasarak in English in the said M.S.K. even after he was disengaged by the District Nodal Officer by his aforesaid order. However, since the respondent no.10 was not paid his honorarium though he was rendering his service as Siksha Samprasarak in English in the said M.S.K., he filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 8608(W) of 2009 before this Hon"ble Court. THE said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 5th August, 2009 whereby the Block Development Officer, Hariharpara, Murshidabad, being the respondent no.4 therein was directed to release the honorarium payable to the said respondent no.10 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the communication of the said order with a rider that if after verifying the records, he comes to the conclusion that his engagement and/or appointment and/or his continuation was made in accordance with Rules, then only his honorarium will be paid.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY this Court holds that the concerned Block Development Officer was not justified by holding in his order dated 21st October, 2009 that the engagement and/or continuation of the respondent no.10 as Siksha Samprasarak in English in the said M.S.K. was made in accordance with Rules. In my view his entitlement to get honorarium with effect from the date of approval of his engagement by Hariharpara Panchayat Samity, ought not to have been recognised by the said Block Development Officer. The decision which was so taken by the concerned Block Development Officer is contrary to the direction of his superior namely, the District Nodal Officer as aforesaid which attained its finality as it was not challenged by any of the parties as mentioned above. Thus this Court has no hesitation to hold that the decision which was passed by the concerned Block Development Officer on 21st October, 2009 contained in Annexure "A-14" to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the said respondent no.10 at page 45 thereof cannot be retained on record. ACCORDINGLY the said order stands quashed and consequently the order of disengagement of the respondent no.10 which was passed by the District Nodal Officer on 30th December, 2008 being Annexure "P-4" to this writ petition at page 26 is required to be implemented.