IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE RESERVED ON: 16.05.2025 DELIVERED ON: 23.05.2025 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA WPCRC 475 OF 2013 + CAN 1 OF 2011 (OLD NO. CAN 8006 OF 2011) + CAN 2 OF 2023 + CAN 3 OF 2024 KRISHNA CHANDRA GHOSH & ORS. VS. DIPOK KUMAR DUTTA WITH WPCRC 25 OF 2018 UTTAM KUMAR SARKAR VS. ASHIS KUMAR CHOWDHURY & ANR. Appearance: Mr. Arunava Banerjee, Adv, Ms. Simantika Dasgupta, Adv, Ms. Ritika Mandal, Adv. Sk. Qareeb, Adv. ….. for the Applicants Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Adv. … for the State/Alleged Contemnor Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.: 1. A Writ Petition persons, all claiming (hereinafter referred their respective 2. The Writ Petition Court dated 17th 3. The order disposing 4. First, the Secretary regarding the service (SE), Malda, within 5. Second, the District accord approval four weeks from 6. It is explicit in would take effect the Secretary of Malda. WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE J.: Petition was filed in 2003 being WP No. 2299 of 2003 claiming to be Assistant Teachers in Bedrabad High referred to as the School) working at the said school dates of appointment or joining. Petition which was disposed of by an order of this 17th November, 2003. disposing of the Writ Petition had two directions. Secretary of the School was directed to send all relevant service of the petitioner to the District Inspector within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. District Inspector of School (SE), Malda was directed approval to the appointment of the petitioners within a from the date of receipt of the said papers from the Secretary the order that these two directions contained in effect only upon the petitioners communicating the of the School and the District Inspector of Schools 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE 2003 by six High School, school from this Hon’ble relevant papers Inspector of School order. directed to a period of Secretary. in the order the order to Schools (SE), 7. Both the Managing Bengal had carried appeals were filed were not entertained. Committee was appeal preferred prayer for condonation 8. Thus, the order 9. It is the non November, 2003 10. The Writ Petitioners 2004, sometime contemnors/respondents of 17th November, 11. A Rule was issued renumbered WPCRC 12. A second Contempt Kumar Sarkar, as a petitioner in after the Writ Petition WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE Managing Committee of the School and the State carried the order of 17th November, 2003 in appeal. filed after a delay of 8 and 9 years, respectively. The entertained. Insofar as the appeal filed by the was concerned, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. preferred by the State of West Bengal was not entertained, condonation of delay itself was rejected. order of 17th November, 2003 remained unscathed. compliance of the directions in the order da 2003 that has given rise to the two Contempt Applications. Petitioners filed a contempt application being CPAN sometime in 2004, alleging inter alia contemnors/respondents had not complied with the directions in November, 2003. issued in CPAN 1771 of 2004 and the Contempt Petition WPCRC 475 of 2013. Contempt Application, CPAN 1842 of 2013, was filed introduced as the seventh Writ Petitioner, who in WP No. 2299 of 2003 on 11th May 2012, almost Petition had been disposed of on 17th November, 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE State of West appeal. The The appeals Managing ecution. The entertained, as the dated 17th Applications. CPAN 1771 of that the in the order Petition was filed by Uttam was added almost 9 years November, 2003. 13. A Rule, WPCRC by Uttam Kumar 14. Both matters matter pertains alleged contemnors 15. Several orders have are extremely relevant. 16. Two of such orders, relevance. They rules WPCRC and both Contempt dates. 17. The dismissal of petitioners had therefore not entitled wilfully violated 18. WPCRC 25 specific finding nothing in his WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE WPCRC No. 25 of 2018, was issued in CPAN 1842 of Kumar Sarkar. have been taken up together as the pertains to the same acts of commission or omission by contemnors. have been passed in the contempt petitions, some relevant. orders, dated 27th March 2015 and 6th July, 2018, They are relevant, since, by both orders 475 of 2013 and WPCRC 25 of 2018 were Contempt Petitions dismissed on the aforestated of WPCRC 475 of 2013 was on a clear finding had not complied with the direction of the Court entitled to claim that the respondents had deliberately ted the directions in the order of 17th November, 2003. of 2018 was dismissed on 6th July, 2018 finding that the petitioner was taking a chance and his application which could be construed as 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE of 2013 filed the subject by the same some of which 2018, are of the two discharged respective finding that the Court and were deliberately or 2003. 2018 on a there was an act of contempt. The dismissed. 19. By an order the counsel appearing dismissals dated deliberately used been denied by report dated 3rd authorised counsel 20. Thus, the two Contempt 21. Compliance reports 2023 and the petitioners Sukumar compliance report service of the Report. 22. These are the admitted 23. Counsel for the November, 2003 been complied WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE The rule was thus discharged and the contempt of 5th April, 2023, on the alleged concession appearing for the contemnors, both aforestated dated 27th March, 2015 and 6th July, 2018 were recalled. used the term “alleged concession” as the by the contemnor, (DI) while he filed his compliance 3rd March, 2025. He categorically stated that he counsel to grant any such concession. Contempt Petitions were revived. reports have been filed by the alleged contemnors, last, as recently as in March, 2025. One of the Sukumar Sarkar filed an exception in the form of a reply report of 2023. It is bare and makes no whisper about order, which was categorically taken in the compliance admitted facts relating to the Contempt Petitions. the petitioners has submitted that the order 2003 is a mandatory order, which ought complied by the authorities without questioning the same. 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE contempt petition concession of aforestated orders of recalled. I have same has compliance he had never contemnors, one in the original reply to the about non- compliance Petitions. order of 17th to have same. 24. He has also argued both been blaming Hon’ble Court. 25. Thus, counsel contemnors have directions of and are thus liable 26. Counsel for the In fact, he submitted directions contained 27. He has submitted District Inspector as Teaching Staff part, which required the School to the date of receipt papers, the DI could 28. The second explanation that the school School, resulting WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE argued that the Secretary and the District Inspector, blaming each other for non-compliance of the order Court. counsel submits there is a clear case of contempt have deliberately and wilfully not complied this Hon’ble Court made on 17th November, liable to be penalized. the respondents/contemnors has given a detailed explanation. submitted that there has been no violation contained in the order of 17th November, 2003. submitted that the second portion of the order, which directed Inspector of Malda to approve the appointment of the Staff of Bedrabad High School, was dependent on required the supply of relevant documents by the Secretary the contemnor/District Inspector within two weeks receipt of the order. Thus, without receiving these could not have regularised the appointment. explanation given by the District Inspector relates school was upgraded from a Junior School to a Senior resulting in the creation of six teaching posts, which 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE Inspector, have order of This contempt, as the with the November, 2003 explanation. violation of the directed the petitioners on the first Secretary of weeks from the these requisite to the fact Senior High which had immediately been the petitioners could 29. He submitted that School Service to the aforesaid Act, 2005 had introduced persons to the have. 30. I have heard the and have gone through 31. A brief background petitioners and 32. The school was School. 33. However, as it Team, upon conducting maintain any records for such violation, and an Administrator till 31st August, WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE been filled up. Thus, there were no vacant posts could have been approved as Assistant Teachers. that the petitioners, on account of the promulgation Commission Act, 2005, were not qualified to be aforesaid posts as Assistant Teachers. School Service commission introduced new and higher parameters for appointment post of Assistant Teacher, which the petitioners the learned counsel appearing for both parties through the records of the cases. background is relevant to understand the case made the defence/explanation rendered by the contemnors. was upgraded on or about 1st May, 2000, as a Senior it appears from the records, the District Level conducting an inspection, had found that the school records either for its teaching or non-teaching staff. violation, the Managing Committee of the School was Administrator was appointed on 21st March, 2003, who August, 2004. 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE posts to which Teachers. promulgation of the be appointed commission appointment of petitioners did not extensively out by the contemnors. Senior High Inspection school did not staff. In fact, was removed who continued 34. It is on 1st September, charge of the school. 35. The school, upon additional posts to have informed District Inspector Hon’ble Court having arisen or 36. However, since Secretary of the petitioners had known the purport of Assistant Teachers. 37. In spite of several disclose any evidence on the Contemnors, means on the Secretary 38. All that was disclosed that an order had Neither a copy served on them. WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE September, 2004 that the new Managing Committee school. upon getting the status of a High School, was accorded posts of Assistant Teacher. The Secretary of the School informed the District Inspector of School of such vacancy, Inspector ought to have complied with the directions Court on 17th November, 2003 upon such or new posts created. since the petitioners had not served a copy of the order the School or the School itself, the relevant documents not been forwarded to the DI. Thus, DI could purport of the order before filling up the six posts in Teachers. several queries from the Court, the petitioners were evidence of service of the order dated 17th November, Contemnors, either by way of letter or electronic means Secretary of the School or on the District Inspector. isclosed was a letter on the advocate’s letterhead had been passed on 17th November, 2003 by copy of the order nor a copy of the Writ Petition them. Thus, the School Authorities (which term 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE Committee took accorded six School ought vacancy, and the directions of this such vacancy order on the documents of the could not have the School were unable to November, 2003, means or digital Inspector. letterhead informing the Court. Petition was ever term I use deliberately) nor directions contained 17th November, 39. The connected the phrase “School that on 17th November, school, which as aforesaid. The prove that he had spite of the fact of 2nd July, 2018 reports (14th July, been served with 40. The other, disappearance of the Contempt Petition. petitioners were Ghosh, 4. Fasihur Rani Das. 41. Fasihur Rahaman 2012, (in some Teacher in the WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE nor the District Inspector of School were aware contained in the order passed by the Hon’ble High r, 2003. connected issue and the reason why I deliberately “School Authorities” instead of the Secretary of the November, 2003, there was no Secretary functional was being run by an Administrator till 31st August, The petitioner was unable to produce a single document had served a copy of the order on the contemnors. fact that the contemnors had repeatedly, through his 2018 by the District Inspector and by multiple compliance July, 2023 and 3rd March, 2025), stated that he with a copy of the order. rather interesting, issue emanates from the of the majority of the petitioners as appearing petitioners Petition. The petitioners were initially six in number. were 1. Krishna Chandra Ghosh, 2. Sukumar Sarkar, Fasihur Rahaman Chaudhuri, 5. Bodiur Rahaman, and Rahaman Chaudhuri, in compliance of an order of 27th some other proceeding) had been appointed as an the school on 10th August, 2012. However, 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE that of the High Court on deliberately used the School, is functional in the August, 2004, document to contemnors. This, in his affidavit compliance he had never the sudden petitioners in number. The Sarkar, 3. Dulal and 6. Mita 27th April, an Assistant However, the said Fasihur joined and it was found Assistant Teacher both. 42. Sukumar Sarkar, from 7th Decembe petitioners, had not sent any papers Inspector of School. 43. Mita Rani Das was in a different school 44. The directions service of the order relevant documents The petitioner was 45. The explanations ignored. The District violated the order acted contrary established his present case, he WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE joined on 26th December, 2013. An enquiry found that Fasihur was serving as a Para Teacher Teacher simultaneously in two schools and drawing salary Sarkar, had been functioning as the Secretary of the December, 2007 till 6th March, 2011. Being one had knowledge of the order, in spite whereof, papers pertaining to the petitioners herein to the School. was also found to be working as an approved Para school from 2005 till date. on the Secretary of the School would take effect order on him. Upon “receipt of the order” he would documents pertaining to the petitioners service “within was unable to show service of the order on the Secretary. explanations given by the District Inspector of School District Inspector of School could have been said order only if he was aware of the order and had to the directions contained therein. This w wilful and deliberate intent to disobey the order. he was not aware of the order, the responsibility 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE was made Teacher and an salary from the School one of the whereof, he had the District Para Teacher effect only after would send all two week”. Secretary. cannot be said to have had thereafter would have order. In the esponsibility of service of which had been non-compliance, intent of the contemnors. 46. After a lapse of on the contemnors. diligent in following 47. Post-2005 in view regularization for could not have impermissible in with such directions from the date of 48. The explanation created due to through the School overlooked under 49. Even as late as April to comply with deference. However, petitioners as Assistant WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE been cast on the petitioners’ advocate by this Court. compliance, if at all, cannot be attributed to a wilful or contemnors. of about 8 years, the present Contempt Petition was contemnors. Clearly, the petitioners have themselves following the directions of this Court. view of the promulgation of the School Service Act for the petitioners’ appointment as an Assistant have been considered, as the same would have in law. Clearly, the Court cannot insist upon compliance directions at a belated stage, after the passage of almost of passing of the order. explanation given by the contemnors that all the sanctioned to upgradation of the concerned school were School Service Commission during 2004 and 2005 under any circumstances. April 2023, the School and the District Inspector the directions of the order of 17th November, 2003, However, the regularization of the appointment Assistant Teachers of the School could not be done, 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE Court. The or deliberate was served themselves not been Act 2005, the Assistant Teacher have been compliance almost 22 years sanctioned posts were filled up 2005 cannot be Inspector attempted 2003, in due appointment of the done, as the very basis of the and contrary to 50. The diligence of Petitions were orders dated 27th to a specific finding not pursued their November, 2003, willful violation that the orders were recalled by lose sight of the Contempt Petition, had indeed taken 51. It is an accepted the Court and (persons alleging 52. An act of commission contempt, has to say, to deliberately of the Court. Unless wilfully violated WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE the appointment of the petitioners was found to be the established procedure for appointment. of the petitioner is found to be lacking, as both dismissed and Rules issued therein were discharged 27th March, 2015 and 6th July, 2018. The Court finding that the petitioners in both Contempt Petitions their rights and remedies as stipulated in the order 2003, with diligence, and hence, an intent of deliberate violation by the contemnors could not have been alleged. discharging the Rules and dismissal of Contempt by the order of 5th April, 2023. It cannot be overlooked, the fact, that the petitioners had taken a chance Petition, and had not been diligent in pursuing their taken a chance before this Hon’ble Court. accepted proposition of law that a Contempt Petition the contemnors, with little or no role for the alleging the act of contempt). commission and or omission, to be construed as to be committed with an intention not to obey deliberately and wilfully violate the directions of Unless it is shown that the order has been deliberately violated by the contemnors, it cannot be construed to be 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE be irregular both Contempt discharged by Court had come Petitions had order of 17th deliberate and alleged. It is true Contempt Petitions overlooked, nor chance with the rights, and is between petitioners as an act of obey, that is to of the order deliberately and be an act of contempt of an such acts of omission can be said to be commission or directions of the order directed Assistant Teacher sanctioned post such sanctioned be regularised. 53. There is an additional concerned, that contemnors had Petition was disposed 11th May 2012, petitioner. This 2013 culminated said act of commission Sarkar from the of Writ Petition. construed from order of 17th Uttam, CPAN completely barred WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE an order of the Court. In the present case, there omission or commission by the alleged contemnors be either deliberate or wilful. In fact, there are omission which can be construed to be in violation the order dated 17 th November, 20223. It is clear the regularization of the petitioner’s appointment Teacher of the said school, subject to availability posts. It has been shown from the records that there sanctioned posts available for the petitioner’s appointment additional issue in so far as WPCRC 25 of that of limitation. The order with the direction had been made on 17th November, 2003 and disposed of. In view of the disposed of Writ Petition, 2012, the petitioner in WPCRC 25 of 2018 was add This person (Uttam Kumar Sarkar) initiating CPAN culminated in WPCRC 25 of 2018 upon rule being issued. commission or omission could not be taken by Uttam the date of his impleadment as a petitioner in the Petition. The acts of commission or omission, if, at all, from the date when the directions were made November, 2003. Thus, the second petition 1842 of 2013 resulting in WPCRC 25 of barred by the law of limitation. 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE there are no contemnors, which are no acts of violation of the clear that the appointment as an availability of vacant there were no appointment to of 2018 is direction to the and the Writ Petition, on added as a CPAN 1842 of issued. The Uttam Kumar the disposed all, had to be made in the petition by of 2018 is 54. In the circumstances, an execution of Act, 1971 stipulates timeline is limited contempt is alleged 55. In the present case, on 1st January, weeks for the to regularise the 17th November, 2013 belies the the notice of the commission or 2013. 56. In the circumstances Inspector of School as against him. School to be acceptable. 57. The rule issued Contempt Petition WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE circumstances, one cannot lose sight of the fact that contempt of sorts, which is why Section 20 of the Contempt stipulates a strict timeline for initiation of proceedings limited to a period of one year from the date on alleged to have been committed. case, such act would be deemed to have been January, 2004, being the expiry of the period of six weeks Secretary to give the papers plus four weeks the appointment) from the date of passing of the November, 2003. The Contempt Petition having been the statutory bar that the act of contempt has to be the Court within a period of one year from the omission of such act. The Contempt Petition was circumstances aforesaid, I find the explanation given by the School to be acceptable and dismiss the Contempt I find the explanations given by the District Inspector acceptable. issued against the District Inspector is discharged, Petition stands dismissed. 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE contempt is Contempt of Courts proceedings. Such on which the committed weeks (two for the DI order, i.e., been filed in brought to the date of was filed in the District Contempt Petition Inspector of discharged, and the 58. Consequently, all of this order. 59. Insofar as the second High School, it of the school, since In fact, one of 2007 to 2011, who of 17th November, later stage since be foisted on the copy of the order Section 20 of the 60. Thus, the rule Contempt Petition 61. Consequently, all of this order. 62. There shall, however, WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of second contemnor is concerned, the Secretary of is clear that till 2004, the said person was not the since it was being run by an Administrator till August, the petitioners, Sukumar Sarkar, had been Secretary who ought to have complied with the directions in November, 2003. Thus, the responsibility of the Secretary since there was no such Secretary at the material time) the present incumbent, who had also not been order and in any event, since the action is barred the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. against the respondent no. 2 is also discharged Petition is dismissed. all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of however, be no order as to costs. 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE of in terms of Bedrabad the Secretary August, 2004. Secretary from in the order Secretary (at a time) cannot been served a barred under discharged and the of in terms 63. Urgent Photostat granted to compliance with WPCRC 475 WITH WPCRC 25 REPORTABLE Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, the parties as expeditiously as possible, with all formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar 475 of 2013 WITH OF 2018 REPORTABLE for, shall be possible, upon Kumar Mitra, J.)