Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Abul Fazal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 January, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
17.01.2020
Item No.05
Court No.15
Krishnendu
W.P. No. 29444 W) of 2014
With
C.A.N. No. 373 of 2020
In re: Abul Fazal
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subhas Chandra Hajra
For the Petitioner
Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharyya
For the University
The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following
relief:
" (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take
necessary steps for giving the appointment of Physical Instructors to the petitioner as selected panel declared on the basis of interview held on 03.11.2009 and also consider the representations dated 26.10.2009, 20.01.2013 and 24.07.2014 (collectively) submitted by the petitioner without maintaining selection procedure of interview and preparation of panel which is illegal and malafide".
Records reveal that the writ petition was dismissed for default on 11th November, 2014. Thereafter several applications were filed , which were dismissed by various orders. The last order passed on 19th September, 2016 was appealed against. The said appeal was disposed of with a direction to the learned advocate for the appellant to move appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for consideration of the case on merit subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- . The said cost was deposited and an application, being C.A.N. No. 373 of 2020, was filed with a prayer for hear the 2 matter on merits. The said application is allowed, upon treating the same as on day's list, and the matter is taken up for final hearing.
Mr. Hajra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for participation in a selection process for appointment to the post of Physical Instructor in the Jadavpur University (in short, the said university). Upon consideration of such application, the petitioner was called for an interview on 3rd November, 2009. The petitioner duly participated in the same but the results were withheld. Aggrieved thereby, several representations were submitted but the same were not responded to. He further submits that though the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the concerned post, he was not appropriately assessed by the authorities. The authorities of the said university had conducted the selection process in an illegal manner with an intent to accommodate a favoured candidate.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the university submits that to fill up a post of Physical Instructor, an advertisement was published. A committee was constituted to conduct the said selection. In response to the advertisement published, seventeen candidates, including the petitioner, applied; out of which ten candidates were called for the interview. In the interview, nine appeared and one was absent. The petitioner was interviewed and he did not come within the zone of consideration. In the panel consisting of three candidates prepared by the committee, the first person in the panel, namely, Bishnu Sankar Panchadhyayee, was given appointment on 16th November, 2009. The documents, as produced, be kept on record.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
3
It is well settled that upon participation in a selection process a candidate cannot turn back and challenge the same since the results are not palatable. In the instant case, the petitioner duly participated in the selection process. He was called for the interview. However, he could not secure a position in the panel, consisting of three candidates, prepared by the committee.
In the said conspectus, this Court is unable to grant the relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
The applications, being C.A.N. 9429 of 2016 and C.A.N. 9370 of 2016, which are listed today, had already been dismissed by an order dated 19th September, 2016.
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 upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)