Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manoj Kumar Giri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 February, 2020
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
CAN No.6446 of 2019
in
W. P. No.21647 (W) of 2014
Manoj Kumar Giri
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
07.02.2020
ML-762 Mr. Bapin Baidya ... for the petitioner.
Ct.15
(S.R.) Mr. Gourav Das ... for the Council.
Mr. Subir Sanyal
Mr. Ratul Biswas ... for the Board.
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 this Court on 10th April, 2019 when the
writ petition was dismissed for default. Accordingly, the
order dated 10th April, 2019 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.6446 of 2019 is, accordingly, disposed of.
Mr. Baidya, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner emerged to be
successful in the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short, TET)
Examination, 2012, as would be explicit from the
document annexed at page 21 of the writ petition but
2
subsequent thereto, he was not called for the interview.
The petitioner has been illegally ousted from the zone of
consideration. Objecting to such action, a representation
was submitted by the petitioner on 25th June, 2014 to the
respondent no.3 but the same was not responded to.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Records reveal that the writ petition was admitted initially on 22nd September, 2014 with a direction towards exchange of affidavits. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit-in- opposition has been filed on behalf of the Board stating inter alia that "the information being Annexure "P-3" to the petition is a fake and fabricated document procured by the petitioner. I specifically state that the result of the TET, 2012 was published on 22nd November, 2013 and the Board uploaded it in its official website (www.wbresults.nic.in) on 22nd November, 2013. The Board had withdrawn the data pertaining to the result of TET, 2012/ TET qualified candidates of TET, 2012 from its website on and from 20th December, 2013. But the document annexed to the petition as Annexure "P-3" was downloaded by the petitioner on 5th September, 2014 from www.wbresultnic.in when there was no such data on the 3 officials website of the Board. Moreover, in the official website of the Board, the names of the candidates were mentioned but the name of the candidate appears from the Annexure "P-3" to the petitioner. In the official website of the Board, only roll numbers of the candidates who passed TET, 2012 was mentioned. Furthermore, the document being Annexure "P-3" to the petition was not downloaded from the official website (www.wbresults.nic.in) but from a different website www.wbresultnic.in. It is therefore clear that the document being Annexure "P-3" to the petition is a fake and fabricated document."
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the Board submits that no reliance can be placed upon the said document in Annexure "P-3" and that the Board had already lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar Police Station on 24th September, 2014 complaining about submission of fake documents from several persons upon downloading the same from fake websites.
Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the Council adopts the submissions of Mr. Sanyal.
In reply, Mr. Baidya submits that the complaint had been lodged by the Board in the concerned police station 4 after filing of the writ petition and merely on the basis of the same it cannot be said that the document in Annexure "P-3" is fake.
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, it appears that the veracity of the document in annexure "P-3" of the writ petition is in doubt and its genuinity cannot be decided in the present writ petition. Such issue involves disputed questions of fact. The concerned selection process is over and the life of the panel had also expired.
In view thereof, this Court is unable to grant the relief, as prayed for, in the present writ petition and the same 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.) 5