Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Alaka Mahata vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 September, 2013
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Biswanath Somadder
W. P. 23178 (W) of 2012
Alaka Mahata
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner(s) :- Mr. Chittopriyo Ghosh
Mr. Pratik Dhar
Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak
Mr. Samir Halder
... For the respondent no. 8.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, A.G.P.,
Mr. Abdus Salam
... For the respondent nos. 1-6.
Heard on : 11.9.2013.
Judgment on : 11.9.2013.
Biswanath Somadder, J.:
Let the affidavits filed in the Court today be taken on record. The writ petitioner has approached this Court in a second round of litigation, raising essentially the same issue which was raised by her in an earlier writ petition. That writ petition, being W. P. 10112 (W) of 2012, was disposed of on 20th June, 2012, by another Bench of this Court with a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to consider the representation made by the writ petitioner on 5th April, 2012, and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Consequently, the matter in issue was taken up for consideration by the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, Paschim Medinipur, who passed the order dated 21st August, 2012, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ proceeding.
From the records it appears that the concerned District Project Officer initially took up the matter on 27th July, 2012, and thereafter again on 14th August, 2012 and lastly on 21st August, 2012.
Perusing the three orders, which have been reflected in the order sheets annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the decision of the concerned District Project Officer was rendered in conformity with the direction given by the Court, as contained in the order dated 20th June, 2012, and is supported with cogent reasons.
Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents provides clearly the respective scores of the petitioner and private respondent no. 8 in the selection process for the post of additional para-teacher under Jamboni Block, situated in the district of Paschim Medinipur.
The writ court ought not to transpose itself as an appellate authority over a particular authority which has performed its obligation to abide by the specific directions given by a Court and rendered a decision in the matter supported with cogent reasons. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked in such a case, unless of course, the decision so rendered by the concerned authority was palpably wrong or arbitrary or perverse or smacked of malafide motive or had been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court. In this context, one may take notice of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amarendranath Mandal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 Calcutta 56.
None of the exceptions, as stated above, are present in the facts of the instant case, which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As observed hereinbefore, the impugned decision rendered by the concerned District Project Officer is in conformity with the order dated 20th June, 2012, passed in W. P. 10112 (W) of 2012 and is supported with cogent reasons.
For reasons stated above the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) ap