RIMPA SAHA V. DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL, MALDA C.A. NO. 853/2025

BENCH: Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

FACTS:

The present case arose from a dispute regarding the employment status of Rimpa Saha, who served as an assistant teacher under the District Primary School Council, Malda. The issue began when the Council alleged that Saha was absent from her duties without authorization. This alleged unauthorized absence led the Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. Saha, however, contested these claims, arguing that the Council’s actions were unjust and that the procedures followed did not adhere to established legal and procedural norms.

In response to the Council's actions, Rimpa Saha filed a petition seeking relief and challenging the decision before the Calcutta High Court. The case was heard on 29/08/2024, along with similar matters involving the District Primary School Council, Malda, where the court scrutinized the actions of the Council. The court's primary focus was to determine whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent decisions regarding Saha's employment were conducted fairly and in compliance with due process. The judicial review in this case aimed to address whether Rimpa Saha's rights as an employee had been violated and to clarify the legal standards the Council is required to follow when managing such disputes. The outcome of the case was also expected to have broader implications for handling employment and disciplinary actions within the education sector. 

The case reached before the SC as an appeal to a review of the Calcutta High Court's order dated April 26, 2024, regarding alleged irregularities in the 2009 recruitment process for the District Primary School Council (DPSC), Malda. The order, passed with the oral consent of the respondents’ counsel, stated that candidates from the 2009 recruitment who filed writ petitions by April 25, 2024, would be eligible for appointments against existing or future vacancies. That review petition challenging the April 26 order, arguing that the respondents' counsel had not provided written consent for the order was entertained by the HC. In its ruling on September 25, 2024, the Calcutta High Court allowed the review petition and set aside the April 26 order. The court held that, as the order was based on consent that was not documented in writing, it could not be upheld.

ISSUES:

The key issue in the case was whether the oral consent can be considered on par with written consent or can the oral consent be relied upon for determining liability of the respondents. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Apex Court set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a review petition in a service matter based solely on the lack of written consent for an earlier order passed by the High Court.

“All constitutional courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on the footing that there is no consent given in writing. As oral consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26 April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent”, the Court held. The Supreme Court noted that the Calcutta High Court's September 25 order rested on the premise that written consent had not been given for the April 26 order. During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked. “We will tell you the danger. All constitutional courts accept oral statements made across the bar. If, on such ground that there is no consent in writing we start recalling the orders, nobody will accept statements across the bar. For every statement we will take the affidavit of the counsel”. 

The Supreme Court highlighted that the April 26 order of the Calcutta High Court had explicitly recorded the oral consent of the counsel representing the respondents, including the District Primary School Council (DPSC). It ruled that the absence of written consent was not sufficient grounds to allow the review petition. The Court found that the Calcutta High Court erred in recalling the April 26 order based solely on the claim of lacking written consent. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the September 25 order of the Calcutta High Court and reinstated the original order dated April 26, 2024. However, it clarified that any party dissatisfied with the April 26 order was free to challenge it through proper legal channels, ensuring that procedural fairness and due process remain available to all affected parties.

ANALYSIS:

Through this judgement the SC made a crucial statement which would stand the test of time in judiciary. The SC stated that lack of care of behalf of parties and the mistakes that follow will not be tolerated by the Court. Moreover the Court emphasised if such grave mistakes, which are easily avoidable are made, it will be pointed out and penalised by the Court. Finally, the Court also laid down an important precedent of oral consent in on level terms with written consent. Once oral consent is give the party cannot double back and state the written consent is not present thus making it invalid. The Court also pointed out that many judgments are made over consent granted on oral basis, and if written statement is established to be more of a consent than oral one, many instances of judgements would be on a false premise and it will question the integrity of the court.