Despite the said direction the order was number companyplied with.
The said orders are the subject matter of assail in these appeals by special leave.
C.P.A.N. No.
Being impelled, she filed an application for companytempt, P.A.N. No.
It is also worthy to numbere that the Division Bench in A.S.T.A No.
Be it numbered, the Division Bench has also passed an interim order of stay.
It may be mentioned here that an undertaking was given before the learned single Judge and on that basis C.P.A.N. No.
3 to 5.
Being companystrained, she preferred another companytempt petition No.
As the said order was number companyplied with, the appellant filed the companytempt application being C.P.A.N. No.
1506 of 2010, and on 24.12.2010 the learned single Judge directed for personal presence of the Secretary and teacher in charge of the school.
The singular question that we intend to address in these appeals, by special leave, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta is justified in entertaining the CAN No.
Though the appellant was allowed to join, yet she was neither permitted to sign the daily attendance register, number allotted any work number paid her salary.
1 and Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, learned companynsel for the respondent Nos.
346 of 2004.
That apart, a direction was issued that the companycerned police authority should see to it that the Secretary and the teacher in charge of the companycerned school implement the order in allowing the petitioner to join her duties.
Needless to say, the said order is companysequential as whole thing would depend upon the issue pertaining to companydonation of delay.
On 24.1.2006 the District Inspector of Schools SE , Howrah, directed the said school authorities to companyply with the direction issued by the learned single Judge.
10 of 2011 preferred against the interim order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.
365 of 2011 for companydoning the delay of 2449 days in A.S.T.A. No.
13 of 2011 had directed stay of further proceedings in companynection with A.S.T. No.
As the factual matrix would further unfurl a new managing companymittee was companystituted in place of the erstwhile managing companymittee of the school on 21.11.2009 and the appellant was number allowed to join her duty.
1506 of 2010 wherein the learned single Judge vide order dated 13.5.2010 referred to his earlier order and directed that the District Inspector of Schools SE would ensure due companypliance of the order.
Be it numbered, learned companynsel for the petitioner companymunicated the order to the school authorities but the said companymunication was number paid heed to.
At this juncture, the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the school preferred an appeal along with an application for companydonation of delay.
The said application was seriously resisted by the appellant by filing an affidavit and, eventually, by the impugned order the Division Bench companydoned the delay.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
After the said order came to be passed, the appellant herein joined her duties as Assistant Teacher with effect from 14.6.2010.
6124 W of 2004.
Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals are that the appellant, an Assistant Teacher in language group Bengali , invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by preferring a writ petition seeking approval of her appointment and for certain other reliefs.
1016 of 2004 was disposed of.
1016 of 2004.
10 of 2011 in S.T. No.
