S/L 1 11.03.2025 Court. No. 551 Suvayan/ SK WPA 3871 of 1978 Sri Chittaranjan Roy Vs. The Secretary, West Bengal Secondary Education & Ors. Mr. Bikash Goswami Mr. Chittaranjan Panda Mr. Subhendu Sanyal Ms. Satabdi Bhattacharya …for the petitioner. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya …for W.B.B.S.E. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, AGP Mr. Saugata Mitra …for the State. 1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner files two exceptions to the reports as filed by the State respondent as well as by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Let the said two exceptions be taken on record. 2. This Court has heard Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’ in short) and Mr. Mitra led by Mr. Banerjee, learned A.G.P. for the State. 3. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner originally made a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondent no. 1 commanding him not to give effect to the memo dated 11.05.1978 2 with a further prayer for cancellation and/or rescinding and/or withdrawal of the said memo. 4. It is pertinent to mention herein that by the said memo dated 11.05.1978 the private respondent no. 5 was reinstated to the post of Headmaster of ‘Mahanayak Nehru Colony Nababharati Sikshaniketan (Junior High School), Ashrafabad Government Colony, P.O. – Maniktala, 24 Parganas’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said school’ in short) which had an effect of removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Headmaster of the said school where he has been appointed by the Managing Committee of the said school on 20.12.1976 and such appointment was approved by the DI of Schools, S.E., 24 Parganas, Alipore under cover of his memo dated 09.03.1977. 5. 5. Since with the passage of time, the writ petitioner attained his age of superannuation, a leave was granted to the writ petitioner to amend his prayer as made in the instant writ petition and accordingly such prayer was amended on 28.02.2025 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondent authorities to treat the period from when the writ petitioner was forced to remain absent from his duty that is from February, 1985 to the actual date of his superannuation as ‘spent on duty’ with a further prayer for releasing the entire back wages of the writ petitioner that is from February, 1985 to the date of his superannuation along with accrued interest 3 thereon at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent per annum and also to release and pay the terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, etc. together with interest at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent per annum along with other ancillary reliefs. 6. In course of hearing Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 15 of the instant writ petition being a copy of letter dated 22.06.1975 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 being the erstwhile Headmaster of the said school had tendered his resignation. Drawing attention to page no. 16 of the instant writ petition it is submitted by Mr. Goswami that from the copy of the resolution dated 25.06.1975 it would reveal that the said resignation of the respondent no. 5 was duly accepted by the Managing Committee. 7. It is submitted further that immediately thereafter one Panchanan Majumder a teacher of the said school was assigned with the duty to discharge the function of teacher-in-charge by the Managing Committed of the school and when the said teacher-in-charge that is Panchanan Majumder was restrained by the respondent no. 5, the then teacher-in-charge that is Panchanan Majumder filed Title Suit no. 549 of 1975 in the Court of learned 2nd Munsif at Barasat against the respondent no. 5 with a prayer for declaration and permanent injunction. 4 8. While drawing attention to page nos. 22 and 23 of the instant writ petition Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submits further that by Order no. 29 dated 22.09.1976 the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on the basis of a solenama, a copy of which is available at page no. 23 of the writ petition wherefrom it would reveal that the said Panchanan Majumder being the plaintiff and the present respondent no. 5 being the defendant entered into a compromise that the parties to the said suit would not have any claim over the post of Headmaster of the said school and they have also agreed that in the event the school authority made an endeavor to appoint a new Headmaster, they have got no objection at all. 9. In his next limb of submission Mr. Goswami draws attention of this Court to page nos. 12 and 13 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami that the present writ petitioner was appointed in the said school as a Headmaster under cover of an appointment letter dated 20.12.1976 issued by the the then secretary of the school and subsequently, by a memo dated 09.03.1977 the then DI of Schools, SE, 24 Parganas, Alipore approved the appointment of the writ petitioner as Headmaster of the said school. 10. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami that all on a sudden the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education under cover of his letter dated 11.05.1978 directed for reinstatement of the respondent no. 5 as 5 Headmaster in the said school and in the said letter it has also been mentioned that the period of the absence of the respondent no. 5 from the school would be treated as qualifying service. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that by a letter dated 18.06.1978 the writ petitioner through his learned Advocate made a representation before the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as well as to the different functionaries of the State with a request for revoking the said letter dated 11.05.1978 but of no effect. 11. Mr. Goswami further submits that even thereafter the writ petitioner discharged his duty as Headmaster in the said school up to January, 1985 and from February, 1985 he was not allowed to enter in the said school and thus the writ petitioner could not perform his duty as Headmaster. It is also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had drawn a salary from the said school till January, 1985. 12. At this juncture, Mr. Goswami draws attention of this Court to the report as filed on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as has been affirmed on 08.01.2025. Drawing attention to the Annexure – A of the said report being a copy of the memo dated 08.04.1978 issued by the Director of Secondary Education West Bengal to the Secretary of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education it is submitted by Mr. Goswami that from the said memo 6 dated 18.04.1978 it would reveal that the said Director of Secondary Education most whimsically came to a finding that the respondent no. 5 was forced to tender his resignation on the basis of an enquiry report and thus he directed the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to reinstate the respondent no. 5 in the said school as Headmaster without deciding the fate of the writ petitioner. Drawing attention to the copy of the enquiry report at page nos. 6 and 7 of the said report of the Board it is further submitted by Mr. Goswami that the said report does not reveal anything with regard to forceful tender of resignation by the respondent no. 5. 13. Drawing attention to the report dated 24.02.2025 as submitted by the State as filed by the DI of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas it is further submitted by Mr. Goswami that the said report is absolutely cryptic one since it does not disclose as to why and as to how the writ petitioner was removed from his service without due course of law. 14. At this juncture, Mr. Goswami further draws attention of this Court to the page no. 9 of the exception filed by the writ petitioner against the report of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It is submitted that considering the turmoil in the said school the writ petitioner under cover of his letter dated 13.03.1986 requested the DI of Schools (SE), Barasat, North 24 Parganas to 7 reallocate him in any other school equivalent to a post occupied by him which was also not given any adherence to for the reason best known to the respondent Board and/or respondent State. Mr. Goswami thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition in terms of the prayer as made in the instant writ petition. 15. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in her usual fairness submits before this Court that when the writ petitioner was appointed in due process of law and when his service was approved by the DI of Schools, SE, 24 Parganas, Alipore the writ petitioner ought not to have been removed from his said post in this fashion. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya that admittedly prior to removal of the writ petitioner principle of natural justice has not been followed. 16. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State draws attention of this Court to the report dated 24.02.2025 as submitted by DI of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that since the matter is too old and no record could be traced, all papers in connection with the instant matter could not be placed before this Court. However, he confirms that the present writ petitioner was selected as Headmaster of the said school and the then DI of Schools accorded his approval to such appointment under cover of his memo no. 390 dated 8 09.03.1997 and subsequently, the then Secretary as per direction of the Director of the Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal reinstated the respondent no. 5 in the post of the Headmaster in the said school. 17. On overall consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned Advocates for the contending parties it appears to this Court that the reinstatement of the respondent no. 5 in the post of the Headmaster is not subject matter of the instant writ petition. It appears to this Court that after acceptance of the resignation of the respondent no. 5 from the post of Headmaster of the said school the present writ petitioner was appointed by the Secretary of the the then Managing Committee of the school under cover of his memo dated 20.12.1976 and subsequently, the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved by the the then DI of Schools, SE, 24 Parganas, Alipore under cover of his memo dated 09.03.1977. 18. For some reason or other the Director found that the resignation as tendered by the respondent no. 5 was forceful and he accordingly directed the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to reinstate the respondent no. 5 in the post of the Headmaster of the said school but while issuing such direction and while making such communication under cover of memo dated 11.05.1978 neither the Director of West Bengal Board of Secondary 9 Education nor the DI of School, SE, 24 Parganas failed to visualize the fate of the writ petitioner in respect of his service to which he was lawfully appointed and his service was approved by the DI of Schools, SE, 24 Parganas, Alipore in accordance with the prevailing rule. 19. As rightly pointed by Ms. Bhattacharyya that the effect of issuance of memo dated 11.05.1978 is in effect deprivation of the writ petitioner from his service as Headmaster to which he has every right to hold and occupy. 20. Materials have been placed before this Court that the writ petitioner through his learned Advocate made a representation before the different functionaries of the State as well as to the DI under cover of his Advocate’s letter dated 18.06.1978 and even on 13.03.1986 he made a prayer before the DI of Schools (SE), Barasat Regional Office, District – North 24 Parganas to reallocate him to any other school which was also not considered. 21. From the factual scenario as discussed hereinabove, this Court thus considers that the removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Headmaster of the said school tantamounts to deprivation of Article 14 as well as the Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondent authorities more specifically of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 shows complete arbitrariness in executive/administrative action. 10 22. At this juncture, this Court proposes to look to a reported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court A. L. Kalara vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India reported in (1984) 3 SCC 316 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with subject of arbitrariness in executive action held thus: “19. The scope and ambit of Article 14 have been the subject matter of a catena of decisions. One facet of Article 14 which has been noticed in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] deserves special mention because that effectively answers the contention of Mr. Sinha. The Constitution Bench speaking through Bhagwati, J. in a concurring judgment in Royappa case observed as under; [SCC para 85, p. 38: SCC (L&S) p. 200] The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalizing principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., “a way of life”, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with may aspects and dimensions and it cannot be “cribbed, cabined and confined” within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to 11 arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies: one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. This view was approved by the Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia case. It thus appears well-settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equal of (sic) protection by law. The Constitution Bench pertinently observed in Ajay Hasia case and put the matter beyond controversy when it said “wherever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the Legislature or of the executive or of an „authority‟ under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action”. This view was further elaborated and affirmed in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305]. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] it was observed that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is thus too late in the day to contend that an executive action shown to be arbitrary is 12 not either judicially reviewable or within the reach of Article 14. The contention as formulated by Mr. Sinha must accordingly be negatived.” 23. This Court thus considers that the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Admittedly, the writ petitioner cannot be reinstated to the post of Headmaster either in the said school or any other school since the writ petitioner has already attained the age of his superannuation. 24. Such being the position, this Court while allowing the instant writ petition directs the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to treat the period of absence of the writ petitioner from his duty i.e. from February, 1985 to the date of his superannuation as ‘spent on duty’. 25. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are further directed to calculate the entire arrears towards salary of the writ petitioner that is from February, 1985 to his actual date of superannuation forthwith and while calculating such arrear salary, the said respondents are directed to give the benefit of revision of scale of pay as a Headmaster of the said school. 26. It is further directed that the entire admissible arrears towards salary are to be disbursed to the writ petitioner in four equal monthly instalments. However, such arrears are to be cleared positively by the last day of December, 2026. 27. The State respondent is further directed to calculate the entire terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension of the writ petitioner 13 considering that the writ petitioner was in service from February, 1985 to the date of his actual superannuation. 28. The calculation as directed to be made is to be completed within three months from today and a copy of the same is to be provided to the writ petitioner soon thereafter. 29. This Court further directs the State respondents for immediate release the pension in favour of the writ petitioner after his calculation. 30. So far as the admissible terminal benefits of like Provident Fund and Gratuity are concerned, those are to be disbursed to the writ petitioner by the last day of September, 2025 at a time. 31. The respondent authorities are further directed to disburse admissible pension to the writ petitioner forthwith and in the event for any reason whatsoever the pension cannot be disbursed, the writ petitioner shall have to be paid provisional pension positively from the month of May, 2025. However, calculation regarding the actual pension of the writ petitioner is to be completed by the last day of July, 2025. 32. The time limit as fixed by this Court is mandatory and peremptory. 33. Learned Advocate for the State respondent is hereby requested to communicate the server copy of this order to the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 for their immediate compliance. 14 34. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 3871 of 1978 is disposed of. 35. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)