30.09.2026 Sl. No.19(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 4635 of 2026 Md. Samim Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Mr. Amit Kumar Bose …for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay …for the State. Mr. Nadeem Sulaiman, Mr. Mijanul Kabir …for the Madrasah Education. 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the Joint Director of Madrasah Education, West Bengal dated 28th September, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the appointment letter issued by the respondent no.5, the Secretary, Managing Committee, Jobaida Model High Madrasah under Memo No.JMHM/04/2023 dated 25th December, 2015 being Annexure P/11 to the writ petition and for reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster of the Jobaida Model High Madrasah (hereinafter referred to as “the said Madrasah”). 3. The petitioner contends that the Managing Committee of the Jobaida Model Senior Madrasah issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 28th December, 2 2013 provisionally appointing the petitioner as Headmaster of the Senior Madrasah. The petitioner joined in the said Senior Madrasah as Headmaster on 8th January, 2014 upon due approval of the Managing Committee of the Senior Madrasah. The faculty roster was published by the Managing Committee of the Senior Madrasah from which it would be evident that the petitioner was the Headmaster of the Senior Madrasah. The Madrasah which was functioning as Senior Madrasah was converted to High Madrasah and renamed as Jobaida Model High Madrasah in 2015. Pursuant thereto, fresh letter of appointment was issued on 25th December, 2015 and the petitioner joined as Headmaster of the said High Madrasah on 30th December, 2015. The petitioner continued to discharge his function as Headmaster of the said Madrasah until all on a sudden the impugned letter purportedly dated 25th December, 2015 was issued by the Secretary of the Managing Committee appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of History of the said High Madrasah. Being aggrieved by the action of the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher upon demotion from the post of Headmaster, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster of the said Madrasah which was initially named as Jobaida Model Senior 3 Madrasah and subsequently renamed as Jobaida Model High Madrasah in the year 2015. The roster maintained by the Madrasah shows the petitioner as Headmaster. However, by the impugned letter dated 25th December, 2015, the petitioner has been directed by the Secretary of the said Madrasah to join as Assistant Teacher of History. The action of the Secretary is arbitrary and without any basis. Moreover, the appointment of respondent no.7, Sahanara Khatun as Headmaster of the said Madrasah is de hors the existing rules for the reasons that she joined in the said high Madrasah after eight years of joining of the petitioner and she is much junior to the petitioner. There is no plausible reason for removing the petitioner from the post of Headmaster. He seeks for setting aside of the impugned letter of appointment dated 25th December, 2015 and reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster. 5. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submits that as per the report of the District Level Inspection Team (in short „DLIT‟) of the year 2015 concerning the said high Madrasah, the name of the petitioner is mentioned as Headmaster. However, in the District Verification Report (in short „DVR‟) of 2023 the name of one Sahanara Khatun is mentioned as Headmaster. He indicates that in official practice the importance of 4 DLIT report is considered more vital compared to DVR. 6. Despite service none appears on behalf of the respondent no.5, the Secretary, Managing Committee, Jobaida Model High Madrasah and private respondent no.7, Sahanara Khatun. 7. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the impugned letter by dint of which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Headmaster and appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Secretary of the said Madrasah is sustainable or not. 8. From the documents and relevant records placed before this Court by the petitioner as well as the State it manifests that the petitioner has been appointed since 28th December, 2013 as Headmaster of the said Senior Madrasah. After conversion to High Madrasah the petitioner was once again appointed as Headmaster of the said High Madrasah on 25th December, 2015. As per report of the State, the DLIT report of 2015 also mentions the petitioner as Headmaster of the said High Madrasah. Although notices were served upon the Secretary of the Managing Committee none has appeared to place on record the reasons for removal of the petitioner from the post of Headmaster. Thus it appears that the petitioner has been removed from the post of Headmaster without any plausible reason. Moreover, 5 it is relevant to note that the impugned letter is issued in reference to a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 5th February, 2023, however, curiously the impugned letter is dated 25th December, 2015, which is inconceivable. 9. In view of the above, the letter of the Secretary of the said High Madrasah issued under Memo No.JMHM/04/2023 dated 25th December, 2015 appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher of History is hereby set aside. 10. The respondent no.5, the Secretary, Managing Committee of the said High Madrasah is directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall pass all consequential order upon reinstatement of the petitioner. 11. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 4635 of 2026 stands disposed of. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to respondent no.5, the Secretary, Managing Committee, for necessary compliance. 13. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 17. 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.)