Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suniti Hait vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 January, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
W. P. No.14011 (W) of 2017
Suniti Hait
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
07.01.2020
Sl-546 Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
Ct.15
(S.R.) Mr. Bikram Banerjee
Ms. Tanushree Roy
Ms. Riya Das
Mr. Arka Nandi ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Ld. AGP
Mr. Suman Dey ... for the State.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Ratul Biswas ... for the Board.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on
record.
The present writ petition has been preferred
primarily praying for the following relief:-
"(a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents and each one of them to
forthwith appoint the petitioner being trained candidate in primary school pursuant to the selection process initiated in terms of advertisement dated September 26, 2016."
Records reveal that the writ petition was admitted on 2nd January, 2018 with a direction towards exchange of affidavits. Pursuant to such direction an affidavit-in- opposition has been filed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (in short, the Board) and its 2 functionaries.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that responding to an advertisement dated 26th September, 2016, the petitioner applied for the post of an assistant teacher in a primary school. Upon verification of her credentials, she was asked to appear in an interview but thereafter her name did not appear in the panel. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no.4 on 25th April, 2017 and as the same was not considered, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. Such inaction on the part of the authorities warrant interference of this Court, more so when, the selection process has been conducted in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
Placing reliance upon the averments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Board, Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the Board submits that the petitioner appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short, TET) Examination, 2014 under Exempted Category (General), as would be explicit from OMR sheet. She secured 89 marks out of a total of 150 marks. She was given 5% relaxation in marks being an Exempted Category candidate and accordingly, she 3 qualified in TET. However, at the time of verification of testimonials, the petitioner could not submit valid Exempted Category certificate issued by the competent authority and as such, she could not be treated as an Exempted Category candidate. She was, accordingly, considered as a General Category candidate and as she secured less than 60% marks, she was not qualified.
Mr. Banerjee, in reply, submits that the petitioner did apply as a General Category candidate, as would be explicit from the Admit Card annexed at page 27 of the writ petition.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and considered the materials on record.
The writ petition involves disputed question of facts and the Writ Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry. It appears from the digitized OMR Sheet, as annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition, that the petitioner applied under Exempted Category (General).
In the said conspectus, this Court is reluctant to exercise any discretion in favour of 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 4 applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)