ASIT RANJAN GAYEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition instituted before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a number of Organiser Assistant Teachers challenges an order dated July 16, 2015 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, School Education Department. The impugned order was passed purportedly consequent to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7900 of 2010 (Asit Ranjan Gayen and Others--v--The State of West Bengal and Others) to the Secretary, School Education for considering the case of the writ petitioners herein and pass a reasoned order to this effect after according a personal hearing to the respective parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also recorded that the Division Bench of this Court had not considered an important aspect of this matter, to which I will advert to, shortly. By the impugned order the writ petitioners were denied regularization of their services in the aforesaid school. The writ petitioners, therefore, approached this Court praying that the said order be set aside and in addition thereto, directions be passed to the effect that the services of the said school be regularised and approval is to be accorded to their respective appointments.

(2.) The case made out by the writ petitioners may be summarized thus: a. That Aloke Kendra High School (in short "the school"), initially recognized as a Junior High School under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education was upgraded to a High School with effect from January 01, 1999 by a Memo dated July 14, 2000 pursuant to an order dated September 2, 1998 passed by this Court in C.O. No. 1248 (W) of 1993.

(3.) It is on the basis of these judgments and orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while being fully alive the position of law declared by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which has not been interfered with by the Apex Court that the petitioners before me have come up before this Court. They are dissatisfied by the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities, but only to the extent that the respondent authority, even while purporting to act in terms of the directions of the Apex Court, have actually subverted the intention of the Apex Court by its directions which actually interpret the statutory provisions and the statute applicable, the cases of the petitioners, while making it clear that the Division Bench did not consider an important aspect of the case as recorded by it in paragraph 2(k) above.