Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

7.02.202 vs Sl-02 The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 February, 2020

Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                                        1



                                CAN No.5269 of 2012
                                         with
                                CAN No.10196 of 2017
                                           in
                              W. P. No.14650 (W) of 2010
                                     Sanjit Ghorai
07.02.2020

v.

SL-02                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ct.15
(S.R.)       Mr. Asok Kumar Ganguly          ... for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gourav Das                        ... for the State.

             Mr. Ranjan Saha                       ... for the Council.

Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner does not press the application being CAN No.10196 of 2017 and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

The application being CAN No.5269 of 2012 has been preferred praying for recalling of the order dated 7th May, 2012. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, this Court is satisfied with the explanation given towards the absence of the learned advocate of the petitioner before the Court on 7th May, 2012 when the writ petition was dismissed for default. Accordingly, the order dated 7th May, 2012 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number and is taken up for final hearing. The application being CAN No.5296 of 2012 is, accordingly, disposed of.

The writ petition has been preferred challenging inter alia the primary teachers recruitment process of the year 2009.

Mr. Ganguly submits that the petitioner applied for participation in the said selection process and he was called for a written test on 11th April, 2010 and an interview on 20th May, 2010. He participated in the same and was confident of being appointed.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ petition, Mr. Ganguly submits that the candidates named therein were appointed though they secured much less marks than the petitioner in the written test. The documents annexed at pages 22 to 27 of the writ petition would reveal that the said candidates were not even selected for interview. It is thus explicit that the entire recruitment process stands maligned with arbitrariness and mala fide.

Per contra Mr. Saha learned advocate appearing for the Council denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that there were certain typographical errors in the results published in the website. Such errors were neither intentional nor deliberate and were subsequently rectified by the Council and necessary 3 publication was uploaded in the website. The candidates referred to in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ petition were selected for the interview after rectification of the inadvertent mistakes and were called for the interview along with other candidates.

He further categorically denies that the petitioner secured higher marks than the candidates referred to in paragraphs 10 to 13 in the writ petition. In support of such contention, he has placed before this Court the marks obtained by the said respective candidates. Let the document, as produced, be kept on record. A copy of the same has also been handed over to Mr. Ganguly.

Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process and was not successful and as such, he cannot challenge the same since the results are not palatable.

From the document as produced by Mr. Saha, it appears that Ananya Singha obtained 26.45 marks, Mamata Shit obtained 26.66 marks, Pradipta Das obtained 29.34 marks and Santu Dhara obtained 26.99 marks. The petitioner had not been able to establish the allegations as levelled in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ petition in the written test. The candidates referred to in paragraphs 10 to 13 in the writ petition had not been impleaded in the 4 present writ petition. The concerned recruitment process is already over and the life of the panel had also expired.

In the said conspectus, this Court is unable to grant the relief, as prayed for by 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 handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)