Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sk. Iliash Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 19 January, 2012
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
19.1.2012
sl.no.63
ASTA 297 of 2011
In
AST 562 of 2011
(Sk. Iliash Mondal -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.)
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya
Mr. Amitava Deb...for the appellant
Mr. Md. Salahuddin
Mr. Zamiul Alam...for respondent no.7
The dispute comes within a narrow campus as to the better merit and/or better qualification in between the appellant and the private respondent. They both applied for the post of Arabic Teacher in the concerned school. One claimed that he had better qualification of B.Ed. and the other claimed that he had better merit. In addition, the appellant also contends that his Post Graduate with B.Ed. qualification was overlooked at the time of consideration. Due to protracted litigation as of date, the private respondent holds a letter of appointment in terms of an order of the Division Bench, which is pending consideration in an application for review made by the appellant. The appellant is trying to get the same heard, however, not successful as yet. Fact remains, the post has not yet been filled up.
The appellant approached the learned Single Judge as against the letter of appointment issued to the private respondent as well as cancellation of approval of the appointment letter earlier given in favour of the appellant. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that unless the review application was disposed of, the issue would not reach finality. Hence, the learned Single Judge should 2 pass appropriate order restraining the private respondent from joining the school. The learned Single Judge initially passed an order of stay hoping that the appellant would be able to obtain appropriate order from the Division Bench. However, on the next occasion the learned Single Judge did not extend the interim order, as the appellant failed to obtain any favourable order from the Division Bench. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up before us in this appeal.
We have heard Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Salahuddin, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.7.
In our view, there was no alternative before the learned Single Judge but to deny relief as claimed by the appellant. It is true, the issue is still under consideration in an application for review, which is yet to be disposed of. It is at the same time true that unless and until the review application is disposed of, the appellant would not be entitled to claim any relief before the learned Single Judge as against the letter of appointment issued to the private respondent in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench. On that score, we do not find any scope to interfere.
However, for ends of justice, we dispose of this appeal as well as the writ petition being WP 9928(W) of 2011 by treating the same as on day's list observing that the appointment given to the private respondent would abide by the result of the application for review pending before the appropriate Division Bench.
With these observations, the appeal and the application as well as the writ petition stand disposed of without any order as to costs. 3
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J.) (Soumen Sen,J.)