Calcutta High Court
Md. Azadul Haque vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 28 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)2CALLT498(HC)
JUDGMENT Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. Having heard Mr. Hirak Mitra, the learned lawyer appearing for the writ petitioner and Mrs. Sengupta, the learned lawyer for the State respondents, it appears that the present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect to the panel prepared earlier by the Selection Committee and to give the petitioner appointment in the post of Development Officer in the said Integrated Co-operative Development Project (I.C.D.P.) in the district of Nadia.
2. It is stated in detail that in response to an advertisement, copy of which is annexure "A" to the writ petition, inviting: applications for appointment of officers in Nadia District Control Co-operative Bank Ltd., the petitioner applied being fully eligible and having necessary qualification. It is stated further that after the successful interview, a panel was prepared and the petitioner was ranked at the top of the said panel. It is however submitted by Mrs. Sengupta that the petitioner was second in the said panel.
3. The allegations of the petitioner are that the respondents have illegally cancelled the said panel at the instance of the Union and were trying to give appointment to some other person. The writ petition was moved in the years 1988 whereas the panel was prepared in 1987. At the time of entertaining the writ petition, the Court permitted the respondents to fillup the vacancy keeping one post vacant for the petitioner. The attention of this Court tias been drawn to the affidavits filed by the respondents, as if the first panel was cancelled at the instance of the Union authorities.
4. Nothing has been placed before this Court at the time of final hearing as to whether there is any irregularity and illegality in respect of the preparation of the panel in which the name of the petitioner appears. This court does not find any valid objection to deny the averment to the petition that he is a successful candidate having necessary qualification and selected by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Since nothing has been placed before this Court denying the allegations of the petitioner and since one post is kept reserved. and is still lying vacant, this Court does not find any bar or impediment to allow the writ petition for appointment of the petitioner in the said post and thus issues an appropriate writ to appoint the petitioner for which he was properly selected and his name appears at the top of the panel. It is, therefore, directed that the writ petitioner be appointed in the said vacant post within two months from the date of communication of this order. This application is disposed of.
5. There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this Judgment on the usual undertaking.