Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Mominur Islam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 July, 2014
Author: Debasish Kargupta
Bench: Debasish Kargupta
1
17.07.2014.
S.D.
W.P. No. 19825 (W) of 2014
Md. Mominur Islam
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Narayan Chandra Mondal
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
....For the SSC.
Mr. Sourav Mondal ...For the Respondent No. 8.
This writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent School Service Commission to recommend his name for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in a Non‐Government Aided Educational Institution in Sanskrit (H/PG) subject under OBC (A) category.
According to the petitioner, he appeared in the selection process for 12th Regional Level Selection Test (AT), 2011. His name appeared in the combined merit list prepared in connection with the above selection process against serial no. 194. According to him, the name of the respondent no. 8 was recommended for appointment in a post of 2 Assistant Teacher in a Non‐Government Aided Educational Institution under Reserved category though he belonged to General category. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no material is brought on record to show that the name of the petitioner appeared in the Final Panel cum Merit List prepared by the respondent School Service Commission for the concerned post under the provisions of sub‐rule (8) of Rule 12 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the post of Teachers) Rules, 2007. In spite of repeated request to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the above question remained unanswered.
The respondent School Service Commission prepared one Combined Merit List after proceeding in the selection process after interview. It was not the panel of selected candidates. Therefore, once it is detected that the name of the petitioner was included in the above Combined Merit List, he is not entitled to claim that he a selected candidate. This claim is misconceived.
So far as the recommendation of the name of the respondent no. 8 is concerned, it is not in dispute that his name appeared in the Final 3 Panel cum Merit List in 12th Regional Level Selection Test (AT), 2011 (annexure "P 7" at page 28 of this writ application). Therefore, the respondent no. 8 being a selected candidate was not similarly circumstanced with the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be placed on the same footing with the respondent no. 8.
In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, this writ application is dismissed.
There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )