Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs State Of Punjab & Ors. [(1991) 4 on 2 August, 2013
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
852 02.08.13 W.P. 23121 (W) of 2008
nb CAN. No. 9400 of 2012
ab +
W.P. 23122 (W) of 2008
CAN. No. 9401 of 2012
+
W.P. 23123 (W) of 2008
CAN. No. 9402 of 2012
Mr. Arijit Dey
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. Avijit Dey
...For the Applicant.
The petitioners in these three proceedings have challenged
selection of the private respondents in three separate non-teaching
posts in Jibantala Rokeya Mahavidyalaya. The petitioners themselves had participated in the selection process upon obtaining order from this Court but were subsequently unsuccessful. Before me at the time of hearing, the main ground of challenge urged is that no advertisement was published inviting applications form from intending candidates.
The other point urged is that one of the selected candidates was overage and the selection committee was not properly constituted for lack of quorum. At the interim stage, a direction was given by this Court upon the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal to file a report and in this report, the legality of the selection process has been broadly found to be in order except in the case of respondent no. 8 in W.P. No. 23121(W) of 2008. He was found to have had crossed the age bar.
2So far as the first point is concerned, while it is true that there ought to have been general advertisement inviting applications from all intending candidates for appearing in the selection process, I do not think the petitioners themselves can raise this complaint as they themselves had participated in the selection process.
On behalf of the petitioners a decision of the Supreme Court reported in [1996(5) SCC 460] has been relied upon, and it has been contended that there has been statutory violations in effecting such selection. In the pleadings however, the selection process has not been challenged on this ground, and the petitioners themselves tried to take advantage of the same selection process by obtaining entry into such process by obtaining order of this Court. Now having been unsuccessful, this Court cannot permit them to question the selection process on this ground. In this regard learned Counsel for the private respondent has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sardara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1991) 4 SCC 555]. Several authorities were cited in support of the requirement to effect publication of advertisement by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. But as I am of opinion that the petitioners cannot raise this question at this stage, the petitioners themselves having participated in the same selection process, I reject the contention of the petitioners on this point. On the question of lack of quorum in respect of the selection committee and the allegation that one of the candidates being overage, I am of opinion that before approving their candidature the Director of Public Instruction should verify that aspect and thereafter take final decision on their selection. The Director of Public Instruction shall examine the process and if he 3 finds there is no flaw, then he shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The writ petitions along with connected applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.)