Sanghamitra Karmakar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

petition was disposed of with a direction upon the college to communicate to the petitioner, the reasons as to why her name was not uploaded at the relevant website. In compliance, the college 5 authority informed the petitioner that having gone through the office records, it was found that no governing body resolution had been taken in favour of appointment of the petitioner as a guest lecturer in Geography and no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner.

#17. The petitioner sought for certain documents under the Right to Information Act, which were supplied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition, which was dismissed as not pressed. Finally, the petitioner filed WPA 29 of 2025 with similar prayers and a direction was passed for disposal of the issues, by the competent authority. At the hearing, it was found that other teachers, namely, Rabi Das, Susmita Barman, Sujit Debnath who were made respondents in the earlier writ petition, applied for the position pursuant to a widely circulated advertisement for recruitment of guest lecturers in the respective subjects in the said college and a walk in interview was held. Such fact was corroborated by the Teacher-in-Charge of the college who attended the hearing before the DPI. However, the petitioner failed to provide any appointment letter. There was no evidence of the petitioner’s participation in any interview. The college authorities admitted to have sent two communications to the DPI with a request to 6 incorporate the name of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds even though, the essential documents were missing.

#18. From the contemporaneous documents which were present in the records of the college, it could not be ascertained when and how the petitioner was appointed as a guest lecturer. The petitioner has relied upon two appointment letters which show that she was engaged as a guest lecturer in sociology. These documents completely demolish the case of the petitioner who all along claimed to have been appointed as a guest lecturer Geography. All the guest teachers whose names were uploaded in the portal and were given the benefit of State Aided College Teacher, had produced their appointment letters, interview letters and the college authorities also maintained records of those teachers. Neither could the petitioner produce any document in support of her case nor did the college authorities have anything like that in the records. Only because one of the Teacher-in-Charges felt sympathetic petitioner and requested the DPI to incorporate her name in the portal, does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The documents which were necessary to be produced and which were necessary to be sent to the DPI in justification to 7 upload the name of the petitioner in the portal, are still missing.

#19. It also appears that the government has issued a circular that, after July 13, 2019 no government colleges were permitted to engage any guest lecturer, until clearance of concerned department. The report of the Teacher-in-Charge of the college was considered in its totality. The petitioner’s score sheet at the interview was also available. The college conducted recruitment of guest teachers in Geography, Sociology, Education on September 27, 2016. Their names were also in the list and their appearance at the interview and engagement were supported by governing body resolutions.

#20. Under such circumstances, the authority refused grant of the benefit under Memo No.2081-Edn (CS)/10M-83/2019 dated December 23, 2019 in favour of the petitioner.

#21. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The petitioner failed to prove her case of being appointed as a guest lecturer in Geography by the college. In the absence of any document to show that the petitioner was engaged as a guest lecturer in the mode and manner provided under the relevant rules, she cannot be treated to be a guest 8 lecturer for the purpose of availing of the benefit of the concerned memorandum.

#22. If there was a private arrangement between the college and the petitioner or the college had independently appointed the petitioner to render her services without following the procedure, the State Government cannot be blamed for such action and cannot be burdened with any kind of liability/obligation to treat the petitioner as a State Aided College Teacher.

#23. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

#24. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)