Md. Arif Billah Sardar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

considered, he was constrained to prefer the writ petition. Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for Arif had primarily argued that one Rinki Poddar (in short, Rinki), who was recommended on 23.12.2024, submitted a representation for extension of joining time after expiry of a period of ninety days the date of recommendation. Such representation was duly considered by the Commission in exercise of the discretion conferred upon the Commission by the proviso to Rule 17(3) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools) Rules, 2016 (in short, 2016 Rules) and initially such recommendation was extended for thirty days. In view thereof, no different yardstick could not have been applied in respect of Arif and his claim ought to have been considered by the Commission even though he made an application beyond the period of ninety days from the date 3 of issuance of the recommendation. On the rudiments of such argument, Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury prays for relegation of Arif’s claim for extension of recommendation consideration to the Commission. Dr. Patra, learned advocate appearing Commission, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury and submits that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the Commission to respond to each and every representation submitted for extension of recommendation or re-recommendation and to intimate the applicant the reasons for rejection. The parity as claimed by Arif with Rinki is unfounded in as much as the facts and circumstances involved in the case of Rinki are totally different from those of Arif and that as such, no interference is called for and the learned single Judge rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of Arif. In the case of Rinki, the Commission extended the validity considering the extreme medical complications suffered by her. Mr. Moniruzzaman, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that Arif by a letter dated

21.01.2025 intimated the Administrator of the said school that he cannot join the said school and requested him to accept his non-joining and oblige. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Instead of relegating the matter to the Commission for consideration of Arif’s prayer, we invited Mr. Ghosh 4 Chowdhury to advance his arguments in support of Arif’s claim of parity with that of Rinki. According to Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury, Arif was issued recommendation on 19.12.2024. The period of ninety days expired on 19.03.2025 and the representation for extension of the period of recommendation was submitted by Arif on

13.05.2025 stating inter alia that that due to his mother’s illness as well as for his engagement as an assistant teacher in a Primary School he could not join the said school within a period of 90 days from the date of recommendation. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the Commission, it has been disclosed that Rinki was recommended by a memo dated 23.12.2024. The period of 90 days expired on

23.03.2025 and she submitted a representation on

07.04.2025 categorically stating that she was suffering from a high-risk pregnancy and her doctor advised her complete bed rest. In view thereof, she could not join the concerned school and such fact was intimated also to the concerned school. Thereafter, on 18.03.2025 she underwent medical checkup and she had to abort the twin babies on

28.03.2025. In the said conspectus, we are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances involved in Rinki’s case are totally different than that of Arif. In his representation dated

13.03.2025 Arif did not specify any compelling reason and also suppressed that he had already issued a letter dated