SRI NITYA NIRANJAN BANERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 29th Sept., 1999, an order was passed by Justice Sujit Kumar Sinha sitting singly where under I find that the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, was directed to approve the opening of morning Classes for Classes V and VI in the concerned school within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The impugned order was accordingly set aside In so far as the regularisation of the appointment of the teaching and the non-teaching staff is concerned, the Director of School Education and the District Inspector of Schools concerned shall reconsider. approve and regularise their appointments in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of communication of the order having due regard to the fact that they are already working as such since July. 1994. Therefore, there are two points for consideration one part is in respect of approval of opening of morning classes and another part is for re-consideration, approval or regularisation of the appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staff in accordance with law. So far as the first point is concerned, there is no dispute since the approval has already been made. But so far as the second point is concerned, the contempt application was hotly contested by the parties.

(2.) I appears that an order was passed by the concerned Director of School Education, West Bengal, under Memorandum No. 226-G dated 12th Dec., 2001 where under all the aspects of the matter were duly considered. So far as the approval or regularisation of the service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school is concerned, such authority held that he had reconsidered the pros and cons in compliance of the order dated 29th Sept., 1999 but in accordance with law, approval or regularisation of the so called appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school (made in gross multifarious violation of law) could not be done for the reasons given under the said departmental order. Hence, the claim of the petitioner for grant of additional posts of teaching and non-teaching staff and regularisation of their respective services is rejected in view of the aforesaid observation.

(3.) Mr. Bimal Kumar Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is a gross violation of the order of the Court and as such the contemnors are liable to be punished. Therefore, he relied upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of a judgment in the case of A.N. Sehgal & Ors. Vs. Raja Ram Sheoran & Ors. reported in 1995 CRI. L.J. 2919 : [1995(2) SLR 431 (SC)] and contended before this Court that when the respondents have deliberately delayed in following the mandatory time frame, there is a clear case of contempt. He,also relied upon paragraph 7 of a judgment in the case of The Advocate General-State of Bihar Vs. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries & Anr., reported in AIR 1980 SC 946. According to him, the Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for Contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury an as the expression 'Contempt of Court' may seem to suggest, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage. The law should not be seen to sit by simply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope. The last part had been taken note by the Supreme Court from a judgment reported in 1972 (1) All England Reporter 997-1972 (2) WLR 429 (Jennison Vs. Baker).