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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

572/2009 on 6 August, 2013

40.   August 6,                  F.M.A. 572 of 2009
       2013
                                  No one appears in support of the intra court appeal, when the
                  matter is called on.


                                  In the intra court appeal, the legality of the order dated February 7,
                  2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. 15798 (W) of 2007
                  has been questioned. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge dismissed
                  the writ petition.


                                  The name of the writ petitioner was sponsored by the concerned
                  employment exchange for consideration of a Group-D post in Barbatia Junior
                  High School in the district of Purba Medinipur. The writ petitioner was directed
                  to appear in the interview on Jun e 24, 2007. The contention of the writ petitioner
                  was that he was placed at serial no. 1 in the panel prepared by the selection
                  committee. The writ petitioner alleged that a demand of illegal gratification was
                  made upon him, which he did not fulfill. As such, alteration was made in the
                  panel placing the writ petitioner at serial no. 2.


                                  Pursuant to a direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the
                  minute book was produced wherein the respondent no. 5 was found in the first

position in the panel. The ground taken by the writ petitioner/appellant that the respondent no. 5 was overaged had been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge found that the upper age limit for appointment in the post in question was 37 years for the general category candidates and 42 years for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. The respondent no. 5 is a scheduled caste candidate and he was found to be within the upper age limit of 42 years.

Whether there had been any change in the panel, or not, is a disputed question of fact. The learned Single Judge held that disputed question of fact could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. As such, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application.

We find the order passed by the learned Single Judge is appropriate. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge.

The intra court appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.

( Joymalya Bagchi, J. ) (Arun Mishra, Chief Justice ) dns & ab