Reply To: Appointment of Primary Teachers by DPSCs


10.12 2014
W. P. 31563 (W) of 2014
(Himangshu Mondal & Ors. Vs. The State of West
Bengal & Ors.)
W. P. 30744 (W) of 2014
(Mithun Aich & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
W. P. 30811 (W) of 2014
(Md. Baharuddin & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
W. P. 29606 (W) of 2014
(Jhumjhum Halder & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
C.A.N. 11636 of 2014
W. P. 29607 (W) of 2014
(Jahar Mallick & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
W. P. 30510 (W) of 2014
(Rafikul Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
W. P. 31824 (W) of 2014
(Khokan Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya
Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta
Mr. Subhas Jana
……For the petitioners
(in all the writ petitions)
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, learned Government Pleader
Mr. T. M. Siddique
……..For the State
Ms. Asha G. Ghutgutia
……..For the N.C.T.E.
[in WP 31563 (W)/14,
WP 30744 (W)/14,
WP 30811 (W)/14,
WP 29606 (W)/14,
WP 29607 (W)/14,
WP 30510 (W)/14]
-: 2 : –
Mr. L. K. Gupta
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Ratul Biswas
……..For the D.P.S.C., Howrah
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya
Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal
…….For the D.P.S.C., 24-Pgs.(N)
Mr. Shamim Ul Bari
…….For the D.P.S.C., Malda
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Syed Mansur Ali
……For the D.P.S.C., 24-Pgs. (S)
Mr. Kishore Datta
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya
…….For the State
[in WP 29606 (W)/14]

I have heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for
the petitioners and Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the
Chairman, District Primary School Council, Howrah.
My attention has been invited to an order dated December
2, 2014 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench while disposing of
a writ appeal carried against the interim order dated November
28, 2014. While it is the contention of Mr. Sanyal that the
petitioners may withdraw the writ petition and file an
application for review of the order dated December 2, 2014
before the said Division Bench, Mr. Bhattacharya has argued
that the writ petition can be entertained by this Court having
regard to the observations made in the order dated December 2,
2014 itself to the effect that the issues are different and the writ -: 3 : –
petition is not hit by the principles of res judicata. He further
submits that at the worst, the writ petition ought to be referred
to the Division Bench for decision.
The order dated December 2, 2014 would have a bearing
not only on W. P. 31563 W) of 2014 but also on the other writ
petitions involving, inter alia, challenge to the Government Order
dated June 21, 2012.
The order on the point as to whether I ought to continue
with hearing of these writ petitions or ought to refer the same to
the Division bench for decision, is reserved.
Let it be recorded that an affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the respondent no. 1 explaining the reasons for issuance of
the Government Order dated 21st June, 2012, which shall be
retained with the records along with the reply affidavit thereto,
filed by the petitioners.
Affidavits bringing it on record that advertisements have
been published in pursuance of the earlier orders of the Court,
filed by the petitioners, shall also be retained with the records.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )