Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Rahul Deb Lahiri vs Ar The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 October, 2023

z


17      16.10.2023                      FMA 625 of 2023
Ct-08                                            with
                                         I.A No. CAN 2 of 2022

                                           Rahul Deb Lahiri
                                                  Vs.
ar                                  The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                           Mr. S. S. Sarkar
                           Ms. Indrani Chakraborty
                           Ms. SardaSha
                                            ... For the Appellant

                           Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
                           Ms. Supriya Dubey
                                           ... For the WBCSSC


                           1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

                     for the parties.

                           2. The selection process which was initiated by

                     the     West      Bengal      Central       School   Service

                     Commission in the year 2010 is now under

                     consideration.      In view of the allegation made by

                     the appellant that by reason of manipulation of

                     marks one Biswajit Biswas was given appointment

                     for the post of Clerk under general category.

                           3. The appellant/writ petitioner relied upon a

                     document appearing at page 17 of the stay

                     application, annexure-B, to show that total marks

                     obtained by the petitioner is more than the marks

                     obtained by Biswajit Biswas.            The petitioner has

                     also referred to final result of Clerk and Group-D

                     staff under 1st RLST(NT), 2010 appearing at page

                     16 of the stay application, annexure-A, which
                     2




shows that total marks obtained by the petitioner

was 31.34.        Before the learned Single Judge the

result   relating       to   the    selection    process    for

appointment for the post of Clerk relevant to the

issue was produced. In addition to the aforesaid,

information disclosed under the R.T.I Act was also

considered by the learned Single Judge. From the

copy of the relevant record that was produced

before the learned Single Judge it appears that

Biswajit Biswas was awarded 8.47 marks in

computer typing and computer proficiency test.

   4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 the aforesaid fact is

reiterated in sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 4. The said paragraph reads as follows:-

"It is most respectfully submitted that as per the original records of the Commission which were produced in court in course of the hearing of the Writ Application it is clear that the said Biswajit Biswas hae secured 8.47 marks in computer tying and computer proficiency and had a total of 41.47 marks while the Writ Petitioner/Appellant had 6.84 marks in computer tying and computer proficiency and a total of 41.34 marks which is lesser than the said Biswajit Biswas. Accordingly, the said Biswajit Biswas was correctly given the individual rank in the waiting list of MF1 - 1 while the Writ Petitioner/Appellant was given the individual 3 rank in the waiting list of MF1-2."

5. Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, learned counsel representing the Central School Service Commission, has referred to a document, appearing at page 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Commission, which is the computer generated print out from the soft copy regarding the final waitlisted panel report for the post of non-teaching staff 1st RLST(NT)2010. It is submitted by Dr. Patra that the panel was prepared contemporaneously and thereafter two more panels were prepared. Moreover, the selection process relates to selection process of 2010.

6. On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal fails.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal being FMA 625 of 2023 stands dismissed.

9. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, nothing remains to be decided in the application for stay being CAN 2 of 2022 and the same is accordingly dismissed.

10. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

4

11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)