Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Sri Radhe Shyam Tripathi vs The West Bengal Regional on 29 July, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
.2011
W.P. 27114(W) of 2006
In re: Sri Radhe Shyam Tripathi ...Petitioner
Vs.
The West Bengal Regional
School Service Commission,
South Eastern Region & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Arabanda Chatterjee Ms. Kakali Dutta ... for the petitioner In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the West Bengal School Service Commission, South-Eastern Region and its Secretary, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, to recommend his name as he is the second empanelled candidate for the post of Headmaster in Shri Baba Sita Ram Vidyapith Shiv Mandir High School, 7/A, Mill Approach Road, Kamarhati, Kolkata-700058. Prayer has also been made for a direction upon Shri Baba Sita Ram Vidyapith Shiv Mandir High School , that is, the institution as noted, and its Secretary to appoint him to the post of Headmaster as and when recommendation is made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The case is that as the petitioner was having necessary qualification, in 2004 he applied before the respondent no.1 for the post of Headmaster. Selection process was initiated and was completed and he was the second empanelled candidate for being appointed as a Headmaster in a Hindi medium School. According to the petitioner, since Sushil Kumar Singh, the first empanelled candidate, did not join, he, under the law, is entitled to be appointed as a Headmaster. In that view of the matter, though a representation was filed before the respondent no.2 on 13th November, 2006, however, it went unanswered. Aggrieved this writ petition was moved on 15th December, 2006 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits and since it was found that a strong prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner, an interim order was passed restraining the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from recommending any name other than the name of the petitioner for the post of Headmaster in the said institution till the disposal of the writ petition.
2It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the petitioner that though the matter was moved upon notice, but till date no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed controverting the statements made in the writ petition.
The first question which comes up for consideration is that whether the petitioner was the second empanelled candidate. It appears from paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in C.A.N. 914 of 2007 that the petitioner was the second empanelled candidate. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner was the second empanelled candidate. Next question which comes up for consideration whether the panel had expired on 8th November, 2005 as stated by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition to CAN 914 of 2007. It appears from the Memo dated 4th July, 2006 appearing at page 31 of the writ petition, issued by the Assistant Secretary of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, South-Eastern Region that the said authority had directed the school authorities and Sushil Kumar Singh, the first empanelled candidate, to come to their office on 16th June, 2006 with a particular request to the first empanelled candidate to inform whether he was willing to join as Headmaster or not. Hence, it is evident that though the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph 5 of their affidavit-in-opposition to CAN 914 of 2007 had stated that the panel had expired on 8th November, 2005, it is quite evident from the Memo dated 4th July, 2006 that the panel was still valid as why could a Memo be issued on 4th July, 2006 even after the panel had expired. Therefore, in my view, the panel was still valid at that relevant point of time. Thus, as the panel was valid and as it is evident that the petitioner admittedly was the second empanelled candidate and the petitioner on 13th November, 2006 had requested the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to allow him to join as the Headmaster in the said institution being the second empanelled candidate, in my view, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 should have expedited the matter in appointing the petitioner as it is evident that the first empanelled candidate did not turn up. In this context, it may be mentioned that though directions were issued for filing of affidavits, as no affidavit has been filed by the authorities controverting the statements in the writ petition, the statements made in the petition are deemed to be correct and the stand of the respondents cannot be accepted.
3Accordingly, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to recommend the name of the petitioner as Headmaster of the Shri Baba Sita Ram Vidyapith Shiv Mandir High School within a week from the date of presenting a copy of the certified copy of this order and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall appoint the petitioner as Headmaster within a week from the date of receipt of the said recommendation.
The writ petition is allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the petitioner on priority basis.
( Soumitra Pal, J.)