Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Swapan Kumar Maiti vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 March, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
363.
12.03.2020
S.D., Ct.15.
W.P. 28291 (W) of 2012
Swapan Kumar Maiti
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rabindra Nath Datta
Mr. Sanatan Manna
...For the Petitioner.
The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia, praying
for issuance for necessary direction upon the respondents to grant
appointment to the petitioner to the post of an Assistant Teacher in a primary school.
Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's name stands enrolled in the exchange under exempted category. Responding to an advertisement published by the Purba Medinipur District Primary School Council (in short D.P.S.C.), the petitioner submitted an application for participation in the selection process. Such application was scrutinized and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written test and was also called for an interview, as would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 20 2 to 25 of the writ petition. The written test was held on 17th June 2012 and the interview was held on 8th September 2012. The petitioner duly participated in the same, but his name was not included in the panel. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short R.T. Act, 2005) seeking information pertaining to the said selection process. The same was, however, not responded to. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court.
Mr. Dutta submits that as an exempted category candidate, the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation. The authorities, however, did not grant such age relaxation to the petitioner and did not include the petitioner's name in the panel. Such illegalities warrant interference of this Court.
Indisputably, the selection process was of the year 2009. After conclusion of written test and interview, a panel was prepared and the lifetime of the said panel has also expired. Records do not reveal that any interim protection was obtained by the petitioner in the pending writ petition and on 24th January 2013, an order was passed recording the submission on behalf of the petitioner that he is not pressing prayer (b) of 3 the writ petition. In the said conspectus this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)