SUJOY SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is for issuance of writs of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and rescind the impugned order dated January 14, 2013 and to direct the respondent no.2 to issue approval of the appointment of the petitioner for full salary w.e.f January 1, 2011 and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner is an M.Sc. 1st Class in Zoology from the university of Kalyani and he was qualified in Gate and Slet. In response to the advertisement of the respondent no.3 & 4 the petitioner applied to the said college authority for appointment to the post of teacher in Zoology for the said college. He was appointed to the said post on August 23, 2004, but, on April 2, 2008 he was rather compelled to resign from the said post as lecturer.

(2.) FRESH advertisement was made for the said post and the petitioner applied to the said post. Then again the petitioner was absorbed in the said post on December 10, 2010. Respondent no.2 did not sanction the appointment and as such, the petitioner had to file a writ petition being W.P. No.12205 (W) of 2012 which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on September 3, 2012 directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within 8 weeks. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the college authority for not allotting any classes to him. Thereafter, on January 14, 2013 the impugned order was passed by the respondent no.2. Being aggrieved this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the respondent no.2 is justified in not approving the appointment and for not passing appropriate orders for release of full salary of the petitioner.

(3.) THE letter of resignation appearing as Annexure P-6 at Page No.38 does not disclose any ground of resignation, but, it was a letter of resignation stating the fact that due to personal reasons he was not able to continue his job. Thus, I find that the question of coercion or threat, on the part of the college authority does not arise at all. At the time of consideration for approval for the second time the respondent no.2 has made clear observation that since the petitioner submitted resignation on the earlier occasion from the said post, such resignation entails the forfeiture of the past service. There is no question of lien at all as the petitioner was holding the whole time contractual service on a fixed remuneration. The petitioner also could not show any paper that he was on lien, but, it is a specific case that he had been performing whole time contractual service as a teacher in Zoology in the respondent college.