LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-81

RATNA JOARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On June 28, 2011
RATNA JOARDAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned an order vide memo no. 1354(3) dated 6.11.2003/7.11.2003 passed by the Chairman, Howrah District Primary School Council whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to decide the matter it would be pertinent to record that in spite of service no affidavit in opposition is filed by the state respondent. However, an affidavit in opposition is filed by the respondent no. 5, the head teacher of the B.F. Siding Adarsha Primary School, Howrah and the respondent no. 4, Howrah District Primary School Council. The respondent no. 5 has supported the cause of the petitioner in his affidavit in opposition.

(3.) MR. A. K. Gayen, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the authorities cannot reject the said application/representation of the petitioner by applying a subsequent Rule/Act which has not been expressly made applicable retrospectively. He further argues that the prayer of the petitioner is for regularization of his service against the approved post and the authorities cannot deny the consideration of regularization of the appointment of the petitioner which at best can be said to be irregular but not illegal and relies upon a judgment of the supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. 5. MR. Tulsidas Maity, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be irregular but is illegal having not been done against the approved post and as such the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said judgement of the apex court delivered in case of M.L. Kesari (supra). According to him the school authorities/Managing Committee without seeking for an approval of an additional post appointed the petitioner and the authorities have rightly turned down the said representation. Thus he concludes that the petitioners have no right to pray for approval of the illegal appointment.