High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 8060/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Education as well as Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (respondents No. 3 and 4).
Decision
The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 27.8.2004 by which the re spondent No.4 was restored to his original position of Head Mudaris of the Madra ssa in question by cancelling the earlier order allowing the petitioner to hold charge of the post of Head Mudaris. The petitioner has also called in question h is resignation letter dated 19.9.2004 which according to him was forcefully obta ined from him by the respondent No.3. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as As sistant Teacher by the Managing Committee of Lohajani Bara Balarchar Pre Senior Madrassa. He was so appointed in 1996. The Madrassa was accorded with the depart mental permission and recognition w.e.f. 01.01.1999. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 who was the Head Mudaris of the Madrassa, tendered his resignation on 25.8.2003 and the Managing Committee of t he Madrassa accepted the same as per its resolution adopted in the meeting held on 29.8.2003. The said resolution was also approved by the Deputy Director of Ma drassa Education on 26.9.2003. It is on the above basis, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Head Mu daris of the Madrassa. But as the order of approval would reflect that he was al lowed to hold charge without any financial liabilities. After the said developme nt, the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education passed the order dated 27.8.2004, cancelling the earlier approval and allowing the respondent No.4 to continue as Head Mudaris. As per the impugned order, although the respondent No.4 had tender ed resignation but the Managing Committee did not accept the same and treated th e respondent No.4 to be on leave. However, the petitioner by fabricating the rec ords had shown the resolution of the Managing Committee to be the acceptance of the resignation tendered by the respondent No.4 and accordingly, managed to get the incharge-ship of the Head Mudaris. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about his alleged forceful resignation from service on 19 .9.2004. It has been stated that the later on the resignation letter was withdra wn. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the prayer made in the writ petition is to set aside and quash the order dated 27.8.2004 and also not to take into account the resignation letter. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it has been stated t hat the earlier order entrusting Head Mudariship to the petitioner was due to fr aud played by the petitioner. As regards the resignation tendered by the petitio ner, it has been stated that the same has already been accepted and the petition er in no longer in the Madrassa. In this connection, the respondents have annexe d the copy of the order dated 6.1.2006 issued by the Director of Madrassa Educat ion, Assam, approving the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Madrassa. In th e said order, the name of the petitioner does not appear. The respondent No.4 ha s also filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that although he ha d tendered resignation, the same was never accepted and thus he continued to be the head Mudaris of the Madrassa. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Managing Committee of the Madrassa accepted the resignation ten dered by the petitioner and the same was approved by the deputy Director of Madr assa Education with direction to advertise the post locally and than to submit t he penal list. The aforesaid pleas of the respondents raised in their counter affidavit filed o n 8.11.2006, 12.6.2006 have not been denied by the petitioner. However, Mr. Mond al, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was app ointed as Head Mudaris of the Madrassa as per the resolution of the Managing Com mittee, he could not be deprived of the same by the impugned order. As regards t he resignation tendered by the petitioner, he submits that the same being not a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner, the respondents could not have acc epted the same. Mr. Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Education on the other ha nd submits that the earlier order allowing the petitioner to hold charge of the Head Mudaris being a product of forge committed by none other than the petitione r himself, the authority rightly cancelled the same and allowed the respondent N o.4 to continue to be the Head Mudaris of the Madrassa. He also submits that aft er so many years of the said development, the petitioner claim that he should be allowed to continue in the post of head Mudaris. If the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not a voluntary act on his par t but was obtained forcefully from him, it was incumbent on his part to point ou t about the person concerned under those threat he has submitted his resignation letter. It was also incumbent on the part of the petitioner to approach the Pol ice by lodging FIR etc. He did not do anything of this sort. Admittedly his resi gnation has been accepted by the authority but such acceptance is not under chal lenge in this proceeding. If there was mistake on the part of the authority in a pproving the purported resignation of the petitioner as Head Mudaris, it was wit hin the competence and jurisdiction of the said authority to cancel the same to undo the wrong earlier committed. Moreover, the settled position in the Madrassa cannot be disturbed at this stage, more particularly, when the petitioner is no longer in the service of the Madrassa. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.