Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Adhrish Kumar Nayak vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 September, 2011
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
26.09.2011 W.P. 18491(W) of 2010
ss
Adhrish Kumar Nayak
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
With
W.P. 21390(W) of 2010
The Secretary, Manikpara High School & anr.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta
... For the petitioner in
W.P. No.18491(W) of 2010
and for the respondent no.5 in
W.P. No.21390(W) of 2010 Mr. A.K. Roy Mr. A. Banerjee ... For the petitioner in W.P. No.21390(W) of 2010 and For the respondent no. 5 in W.P. No.18491(W) of 2010 The writ petitioner in W.P. No.18491(W) of 2010 is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the action of the respondents in not preparing the panel for the post of clerk, taking into account the academic score and the individual score of interview held on 21st August, 2006 and to submit the same before the concerned authority for approval.
2The case of the petitioner is that the writ petitioner is an aspirant candidate who appeared at the interview in presence of Selection Committee. His marks were assessed following due process of selection and on that basis a panel is to be prepared and the Managing Committee of the school is required to send the panel for approval before the concerned respondent.
It was submitted that on earlier occasion a writ petition was moved before this Court and in that writ application both sides appeared and matter was argued by both sides and this Hon'ble Court has passed the following order on 1st April, 2008 in W.P. No.6543(W) of 2007 :-
"In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the managing committee of Manikpara High School (HS), Paschim Medinipur and its Headmaster, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 respectively to prepare the panel on the basis of interview held on 21st August, 2006 for appointment to the post of Clerk in the said school. Prayer has also been made for a direction upon the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur, the respondent no. 4 to approve the panel after submission of the same by the respondent nos. 5 & 6.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 & 6 that the panel could not be prepared since none of 3 the candidates were found suitable. Therefore, a request has been made to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur, the respondent no. 3 to grant approval for re-advertisement for holding interview to the said post. Submission is made that the respondent no. 3 cannot override the view of an expert body.
Learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 submits that after the interview the school authorities instead of submitting a panel had submitted only copy of the prior permission, names of sponsored candidates by the District Employment Exchange Officer, Jhargram, copy of the external expert's approval of appointment, resolution of the managing committee no. 2 dated 19th July, 2006, copy of the call letters for interview and postal documents. However, a prayer has been made for granting fresh permission for advertisement through a state level daily newspaper. It has been alleged that though the school authorities were requested by memo dated 1st November, 2006 to submit individual score sheet, academic score sheet and consolidated statements of the marks awarded by the members of the selection committee, the school authorities allegedly failed and neglected to furnish such score sheet.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the stand taken by the respondent nos. 5 & 6 is not in consonance with the provisions of law since the rules postulate that they should submit the records as sought for by the respondent no. 4 by memo dated 1st 4 November, 2006.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties since I find that the respondent no. 4 by memo dated 1st November, 2006 had asked for submission of the individual score sheets, academic sheet and consolidated statements of marks, I direct the respondent nos. 5 & 6 respectively to furnish the same to the respondent no. 4 within one month from the date of communication of this order. On receipt of the same the respondent no. 4 shall pass a reasoned order.
I make it very clear that this order is passed since a request was made by memo dated 1st November, 2006.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs."
The concerned respondent no.4 considered the same and directed the school authorities to prepare a panel and to send the same to the concerned office for taking necessary steps. This order of Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Jhargram Sub-Division was communicated by and under memo dated 9th February, 2009. Even in spite of such communication the school authority as well as the Managing Committee of the school did not take any step. On 1st March, 1967 the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Paschim Medinipur 5 informed the Secretary of the school, Manikpara High School, P.O. Manikpara, Dist. Paschim Medinipur that the school authorities are to submit the panel for appointment of the clerk on the basis of interview held on 21st August, 2006. The panel should be submitted to the office of the concerned Sub-divisional office for its approval. But in spite of such letter the concerned school did not comply with the aforesaid direction of the Additional District Inspector of Schools and District Inspector of School on both occasions. However, in that writ application the application for modification was filed by the petitioner. In that application the learned Judge of this Court has observed as follows :-
" In my view since the direction has been issued in the memo dated 9th February, 2009 for preparation of the panel taking into account the academic score sheet and individual score sheet of interview which is in accordance with the prevalent norms, the order passed requires no interference. It is also to be noted that ultimately the order of approval has to be passed regarding the panel in question on the basis of the records." Accordingly, no order was passed on that application.
Learned Counsel for the school authority appears and submits that the Selection Committee has observed 6 that a fresh selection is to be made and on that basis a fresh advertisement is required for selection of candidates. But that was not done. He submitted that the writ court has no power and authority to decide on the same since the Selection Committee has already taken a decision.
It was further submitted that fresh selection is required to be held by giving freesh advertisement but unfortunately that was not done. It was also submitted that the application filed by the writ petitioner for modification has been dismissed and the observations made therein are not at all binding.
In reply, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the Managing Committee has no power and authority to take any decision in that regard but they are to comply with the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), pursuant to the direction given by this Hon'ble Court.
It was submitted that there is decision in this regard that the Managing Committee is not authority to take any decision in that matter.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and I find substance in the 7 submissions of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, Adrish Kumar Nayak in W.P. No.18491(W) of 2010. It appears to me that this Court directed to take decision in the matter and the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE) already taking note of the objection of the school authority has come to a decision that the panel is to be prepared and sent for taking further step in that regard. That order is still there and this Hon'ble Court while disposing of the modification application has decided that in view of the decision and/or direction of this Court the District Inspector of Schools (SE) directed to prepare the panel and sent to him for approval and the panel is to be approved accordingly and it is also noted in the order of the learned Single Judge that the order of approval has to be passed regarding the panel in question on the basis of the records.
In my view the observation made by the learned Single Judge is quite clear in that regard and it appears to this Court that the decision of the learned Single Judge while disposing of the modification application is in fact a mandate upon the school authority and the Selection Committee which is required to prepare the 8 panel and sent the same before the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) or Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE).
I direct the respondents, school authority including the Selection Committee to prepare the panel and sent it to the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Jhargram Sub-Division for taking appropriate decision in this matter. This action and/or preparation of panel is to be made by the school authority within a period of 15 days. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order by a letter, even before obtaining the certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. In view of the order passed in W.P.18491(W) of 2010 there is no necessity of further hearing the writ petition being W.P. No.21390(W) of 2010 and this writ petition is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.) 9