Amaresh Shaw v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

980-981. 06.05.2025 (M/L) Court No.05.

(Pritam) WPA 5497 of 2023 Amaresh Shaw -Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Subrata Kumar Basu, Mr. Sounak Sen ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Pabitra Charan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Sovan Nayek ....for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

Mr. Srijan Nayek, Ms. Rituparna Maitra, Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal ....for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the notice dated December 9, 2022 and the order dated November 28, 2022, whereby the respondents had upon consideration of the petitioner's representation, was of the view that there was no scope in effect to accede to his prayer.

3. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a staff in the Anandanagar Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as the said "Society") on temporary basis, by a letter of appointment dated April

20, 2020. Subsequently, his appointment was terminated by an order dated August 31, 2022 on the ground that his induction into service was through the backdoor.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner had moved a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPA 20432 of 2022.

5. By an order dated September 15, 2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court without going into merit of the impugned order of termination and/or the legality or validity thereto, had granted liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the General Body, with a direction on the General Body to consider the representation in accordance with law.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid though belatedly, the General Body of the Society had considered the petitioner's representation, however, concluded therein that the termination of the petitioner had been confirmed. The petitioner is aggrieved with the delay on the part of the respondents in complying with the principles of natural justice while terminating the petitioner from service. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. In support of his contention, he had relied on two judgments, Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. arising out of SLP (C) No.(s). 8788-8789 of 2023, and Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; (2010) 1 SCC 126. I however, notice as is also evident

that the dispute is a private dispute between the petitioner and its society.

7. Having regard thereto, there is no scope to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 5497 of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties upon compliance all formalities, if applied for.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)