SAMSUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to selection and appointment of Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge in Madhyamik Siksha Kendra (In short MSK). The allegation of the petitioner is this he being the seniormost Siksha Samprasarak, should have been given the responsibility of Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge after the retirement of the Mukhya Samprasarak of the MSK on 2nd June, 2018. But from the report submitted today before this court by the Block Development Officer of the Sagardighi Block, it appears that a person who is junior to the petitioner, namely, Rafikul Islam (Respondent No. 6) was appointed as Mukhya Saprasarak by the Administrative Committee of the said MSK. Such decision was taken on 14/12/2018 but there was no guideline or circular or order of the Government of West Bengal as to appointment of Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge at the material point of time as has been disclosed in Annexure 'R-7' at page 17 of the Report which is an order dated 27th May, 2019. In the said order dated 27th May, 2019 it has been stated that the new Mukhya Shiksha Samprasarak/Samprasarika In-charge or Samprasarak/Samprasarika In-charge will be selected by the Administrative Committee out of the working Samprasarak etc. on the basis of seniority in service and preference would be given to the person who has a B.Ed. Degree.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that when Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge was selected by the Administrative Committee of the Maliadanga MSK, this order dated 27th May, 2019 of the Government of West Bengal was not there and, therefore, in absence of any restropectivity of this order dated 27/5/2019 this cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. In any event, he has made a submission, that even in this order it is a question of giving preference but on the basis of 'seniority in service' in MSK is also mentioned in the order meaning thereby that if there are two similarly situated Samprasaraks in one MSK, then the one of B. Ed. Degree would be considered. The emphasis of this order dated 27/5/2019 also is on the seniority.

(3.) Learned advocate for the State has submitted that at that point of time when the private respondent being the respondent no.6 was selected as the Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge, there was no guideline as to who could be appointed as Mukhya Samprasarak In charge and, therefore, as per direction of the concerned Block Development Officer, the Administrative Committee selected the private respondent being the respondent no.6 as the Mukhya Samprasarak In-charge of the concerned MSK.