Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Shanta Moulik vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
25.07.2018
Court No.04
Item no.15
skc
W.P. 1149 (W) of 2018
Dr. Shanta Moulik
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag ... for the petitioner
Mr. Hirak Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Suchishmita Ghosh Chatterjee
Mr. M. Ghosh ... for respdt.no.13
Mr. Animesh Kanti Ghoshal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Moloy Roy ... for the State
Mr. R.P. Motilal
Mr. Pabitra Biswas ... for respdt.no.8-12
Mr. P.R. Mondal
Ms. Bandana Das ... for respdt.nos. 5-7
Mr. Ghoshal, learned senior advocate appearing for State was
invited by Court to place report filed on earlier occasion. He submitted,
report was prepared by a three-member committee signed by them on 24th
October, 2017. Findings in the report are that false information was
submitted by respondent no.13 by online application. It also states, inter
alia, in anticipation that a probable human error may be occurred at the time of scrutiny, certain stipulations have been incorporated in provisional merit panel published in para (V) of notes portion of the provisional merit panel published by the Commission. Moreover, N.B. portion of recommendation letter also, inter alia, stated all original documents in 2 support of eligibility of the candidate may please be verified and checked at the time of giving appointment by appointing authority. Therefore, committee concluded, appointing authority also did not discharge their duty properly as assigned to them.
The Commission has taken a clear stand on their part that there was human error. Human error or mistake relates to taking percentage marks obtained by respondent no.13 in the B.Ed. examination as 55% instead of 54.67%. This human error was caused by respondent no.13 having submitted hand written information sheet indicating her B.Ed. marks to be 55%. However, on query from Court, Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the Commission confirms that page 67 in affidavit- in-opposition of the said respondent is the Commission's document. Information regarding marks obtained by said respondent in B.Ed. recorded as 54.67 was thus with the Commission as in said document. That narrows human error on part of the commission to having erroneously recommended since actual percentage marks, in decimals, was known to it. As such this Court will no longer consider contentions or allegations of mis-representation. What remains is the question of consequence of mistake. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner seeks adjournment.
List on 7th August, 2018.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)