Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arpita Samanta (Maity) vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 February, 2014
1
41
21.02.2014.
mb/as M. A. T. 1147 of 2012 With CAN 6692 of 2012 With CAN 6701 of 2012.
Arpita Samanta (Maity) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharyya, Ms. Ayantika Roy.
...For the Appellant.
The intra court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 14.3.2012 passed by the Single Bench in W. P. 16412 (W) of 2011.
The petitioner participated in the process of selection of para teacher on contractual basis. She was placed at serial No.2 in the panel. However, she questioned the empanellment of another incumbent who was placed at serial No.1 in the panel. It appears that the empanellment of the incumbent who placed at serial No.1 had been deleted. Thus, the petitioner claimed that with the elimination of the candidate who was placed at serial no.1, she had become no.1 candidate in the panel and, therefore, she was entitled to be appointed in the said post. However, she was refused on the basis of the Government Memo which came into effect on 27th March, 2010 specifying that the State shall no longer appoint any contractual or part time para teacher and it shall go in for regular appointment. It was provided that if any para teacher who was engaged previously, 2 leaves the job or the position falls vacant due to any other reason, the vacant position shall not be filled up by engagement of para teacher. The vacant position will be filled up through regular recruitment. Thus, the petitioner had not been appointed. Subsequently, the writ petition was filed before the Single Bench. The writ petition having being dismissed by the Single Bench, the intra court appeal has been preferred.
After hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant at length, we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. Empanellment does not create any right to the post. The State had decided that it shall no longer appoint any contractual or part time para teacher and it shall go in for regular appointment. Thus, the panel was not effective in view of the circular dated 27th March, 2010 issued by the State government. Thus, there was valid reason not to appoint the petitioner on contractual basis. When the post was filled up on regular basis, at that time the petitioner had right to stake her claim for regular appointment.
Thus, we find no ground so as to make interference in the appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Arun Mishra, Chief Justice)