31.08.2026 Sl. No.18 Ct. No.14 gd IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA/10595/2026 Tapas Khamaru VS The State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri Ms. Mallika Manna …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Sengupta Ms. Mary Datta …for the State. Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick …for DPSC, Hooghly. 1. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 5th March, 2026 Annexure P-8 to the writ petition and thereby allow the petitioner to join in school under District Primary School Council, Hooghly as an approved Head Teacher. 3. The petitioner contends that he joined as an approved Head Teacher of Shyampur Primary School (Sing-14) under Singure Circle, District Primary School Council, Hooghly. During his service tenure a criminal case was initiated against the petitioner being Singur Police Station Case No.341 of 2025 dated 25th June, 2025 under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5)/316(2)/318(4)/351(2)/352 of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’). The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid criminal case on 25th September, 2025 and was granted bail on 13th October, 2025. Since the petitioner was detained for custody more than 48 hours, he was put under suspension in terms of Rule 7 of the West Bengal Primary Education (conduct of Service of Teachers of Primary School) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2001’) vide order dated 17th October, 2025 issued by Chairperson, Hooghly District Primary School Council. On 5th March, 2026 the petitioner made a representation before the Chairman of the Hooghly District Primary School Council seeking for withdrawal of the suspension order and resume his normal duty as Head Teacher of the said school. However, the same is still pending consideration. Hence this writ petition. 4. Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter may be relegated to the appropriate authority to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be suspended for an indefinite period of time. To buttress his contention he relies on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this court passed in Nilkanta Bera versus Gorachand Das and Ors. reported in 2002 WBLR (Cal) 648. 2 5. Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned advocate representing Hooghly District Primary School Council concedes to such submission. 6. None appears on behalf of the State. 7. Mr. Sourav Sengupta with Ms. Mary Datta, learned advocates, who usually appear on behalf of the State- respondent are requested to appear in this matter. The appearance of Mr. Sourav Sengupta with Ms. Mary Datta be regularised by the competent authority. 8. Learned advocate for the State also submits in the similar fashion. 9. The petitioner was arrested in connection with criminal proceedings and was detained for more than 48 hours in custody. For such reasons, he was put under suspension. On 5th March, 2026, the petitioner made a representation before the authority concerned for rejoining his post, which is pending before the authority concerned. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the respective parties, respondent no.4, Hooghly District Primary School Council is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 5th March, 2026 (Annexure P-8 to the writ petition) and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law upon notice to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 3 11. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such reasoned order. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.4, Hooghly District Primary School Council for necessary action. 13. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 10595 of 2026 stands disposed of. 14. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.) 4