Barnali Srimani v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

08/04 In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction AD/38/24 Appellate Side 266312 WPA/10118/2023 NANDY (DO) BARNALI SRIMANI Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Mr. Firdous Samim, Advocate Ms. Gopa Biswas, Advocate Ms. Salini Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Md. Inzamamul Islam, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Sanjib Das, Advocate ......for the State

1. Affidavit of service, as filed, be kept with the record.

2. In spite of service, there is no appearance on behalf of the School Authorities.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved that her application for transfer has summarily been rejected without giving any appropriate reason. The petitioner's application had been sent back with a remark "NOC cannot be given to her as per G.O.

(Government Order)." The Head of the Institution (HOI) did not mention which G.O. he was referring to, nor has any ground been specified as to why the application of the petitioner could not be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools.

4. The lackadaisical approach of the HOI is deprecated.

5. However, since a long period of time has lapsed, since the rejection of the application, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh application with the school authorities.

6. This application will be considered by the authorities and, if found eligible, the same will be

P a g e | 2 forwarded to the concerned D.I., upon furnishing requisite documents along with a 'No Objection Certificate'.

7. The entire process will be completed by the School Authorities by 30.04.2026.

8. With the afore-stated directions, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)