Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is submitted on behalf of the District Primary School Council, South 24 Parganas that the candidature of the petitioners were considered and they were found eligible for written test/interview but they did not secure the requisite marks fixed for offering appointments. It is further submitted that the number of vacancies excluding the vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground was determined at 2745 which was duly notified to the concerned Employment Exchange for sponsorship and the vacancy was never assessed at 3300 as alleged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that only one panel was prepared which was approved by the Director of the School Education and the allegation that the first panel was scrapped by the council and a subsequent panel was approved is not tenable. It is contended that the petitioner could not secure the minimum cut off marks fixed for the purpose of giving appointment in each category. Lastly it is contended that two petitioners namely petitioner No.5 and 6 are given appointment in a subsequent selection process conducted for subsequent vacancies and as such the rest of the petitioners cannot claim parity in this regard.

In terms of the said statutory rules, the vacancies which arose before December 31 of the calendar year shall form the subject matter of the selection process, but any vacancy subsequent thereto or during the continuance of the selection process could not be included as the vacancies required to be filled up in the said selection process.

Therefore, any subsequent vacancies for which another selection process is undertaken, pending the selection process initiated in earlier point of time, cannot be mingled and the candidate who have sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange for respective selection process cannot offer their candidature in both the selection process.

The last weapon in the armoury of the petitioner which has been triggered at the argument, though not originally pleaded in the writ petition that out of the several writ petitioners two of them namely the petitioner No.5 and 6 are favoured with the appointment by the council. According to the petitioners if two of them are appointed leaving the others, such discriminatory act offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has come out from the council that those petitioners were subsequently sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange in a subsequent selection process and were found a successful therein and as such their appointments are made if those petitioners are subsequently considered in another selection process. The rest of the petitioners cannot claim parity of treatment on the anvil of discrimination. It is a settled principle of law that the equality clause enshrined the equality amongst the equal and not equality amongst unequal. Although the allegation as to discrimination must be specifically pleaded which is admittedly not done here but such fact has been brought by way of a supplementary affidavit which is otherwise not found tenable in view of the facts stated above. On the entire conspectus of the findings made above this court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition.