Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
( Md. Hazekul Alam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 17 May, 2012
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
55 17. 5.
2012 W. P. No.3031(W) of 2012
p.d
( Md. Hazekul Alam -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
Md. Yamin Ali,
Md. Arif Ali ... For the petitioner.
Mr. Mohaimenul Mandal ... For the State.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Anindya Bhattacharyya ... For the Council
(Vakalatnama not filed).
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks appointment to the
post of Primary School Teacher in District Murshidabad.
The case of the petitioner is that he passed the Written Test so
also the interview. The petitioner belonged to exempted general
category whereas one Rajesh Mondal belonged to reserved category.
As appointment has been given to Rajesh Mondal, the petitioner is
aggrieved, as the Roll number ascribed to Rajesh Mondal, is the same
Roll number as given to the petitioner. Therefore, as Roll No.172133
belonged to the petitioner, it stands to reason that the person again
this Roll number has been appointed and not Rajesh Mondal to whom
such Roll number does not belong. Therefore, the appointment of
Rajesh Mondal be cancelled and steps be taken by the authorities to
appoint the person who had been allotted the said Roll number.
Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that a Report
has been filed wherefrom it will appear that Rajesh Mondal belonged 2 to the exempted reserved category whereas the petitioner belonged to exempted category general. The marks obtained by the petitioner was 13.6567, which was below the cut-off mark of 16.18193 for the candidates belonging to exempted general category. On the other hand, Rajesh Mondal, who belonged to the exempted reserved category, secured 18.3761 marks and therefore, he was empanelled and although the Roll number set out is similar, by virtue of the marks secured, the petitioner is not in the zone of consideration.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, a Report was filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the form of an affidavit and as a doubt is raised in respect of the same Roll number given to the petitioner and the private respondent, the records were called for. The panel for exempted general category candidates has been produced in Court today, wherefrom it is evident that although the Roll number of Rajesh Mondal and the petitioner is the same, no other particulars are similar in nature. For the purpose of engagement, it is not only the Roll number, which is to be looked into but also the sub-category, serial number, application form number and the marks, which has been secured by the candidates. In the instant case, the cut-off marks for the exempted general category candidates was 16.18193. The petitioner who belonged to the exempted general category, obtained 13.6567 marks, which is admittedly below the cut-off marks. On the other hand, the private respondent, Rajesh Mondal belonged to the exempted reserved category and secured more marks than the cut-off marks of 16.18193, namely, 18.3761. Therefore, undoubtedly, the private 3 respondent was within the zone of consideration and had been considered for appointment in the general category (exempted). The only reason for filing this writ petition by the petitioner is the same Roll number given to the private respondent and the petitioner but the Roll number will not determine his appointment and it is quite possible that the same Roll number has been given to both of them by mistake and for this the petitioner will not get an edge over the private respondent on merit.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and no order is passed thereon.
The panel produced in Court is returned to the Counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Urgent certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Patherya, J. ) 4