Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"I agree that all the candidates under Clause (a) of the note at page 13/N may be called for interview.........
Regarding the candidates under Clause (f) of the noate (sic note) at page 13/N, I am to suggest that sl.no. 4, 12, 26, 32, 33 & 42 also may be given an opportunity to face the interview, for the reason indicated below :
Sl.No. 4 & 32 and Sl.No. 26.-
They are working under the Soliciter's Firm in Calcutta and hence, it is expected of them that they would be knowing much about the Company Law and procedures of the Calcutta High Court in regard to the steps to be taken in High Court. They also must be having knowledge of drafting, pleading, conveyancing etc. ..............."
21

37. At page 16 of the file, a note was given by an officer on April 24, 1973 which is to the following effect :

"Notes P/13 to 15n ante may please be seen.
L.A. has scrutinised the applications and has recommended to call the following candidates for interview.
a) Sl.No. 5, 14, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 36 & 37 to be called for interview.
b) He has recommended to call Sl. No. 4, 12, 26, 32, 33 & 42 for interview although they do not have either prescribed percentage of marks in the law Exam. or prescribed qualification. Justification for calling the candidates has given by L.A. in his notes at P/14n ante.
c) There are two Schedule Caste candidates at Sl.No. 25 & 34. L.A. has stated that ......................
d) There are two Departmental candidates............... In view of the above, it may finally be decided whether candidates at
(b) (c) & (d) above may be called for interview or not.

Applications are placed below."

38. Thereafter, there appears a handwritten note dated April 25, 1973 of an officer, which reads as follows :

1) Out of 45 applications recd., 9 Nos are eligible in terms of the minimum essential qualifications and the experience prescribed for being called for an interview.
Nevertheless, as recommended by L.A. candidates at a & b of P/16/N may be called for interview.
The schedule caste candidates may also be called for interview as there is general relaxation in their cases.
Other candidates may not be called for interview as no specific recommendation has been made in their favour by the L.A.."

40. As a result of these administrative decisions, call letters were issued in favour of 16 (sixteen) aspirants for the post, including the petitioner, to attend interview before the selection committee comprising of 5 (five) members. The selection committee comprised of Mr. Shamboo Prasad, Senior Solicitor, Mr. S.C. Mallik, Chief Accounts Officer, Mr. M.R.T. Narayanan, Chief Finance Officer, Mr. A.N. Sahay and Mr. B.P. Shrivasatava, referred to above. Broad-sheet was prepared by the selection committee after considering the particulars furnished by the aspirants in their respective applications. It appears that insofar as educational qualifications and experience of the petitioner are concerned, the selection committee noted that he had passed Matric in the 3rd div in 1964, and B.Com with 2nd Class marks in 1968. He had also passed Attorneyship from High Court, Calcutta in January 1971. It was also noted that the petitioner had worked under B.K. Sen & Co., Calcutta as Article and Assistant from 21.9.1969 to 31.12.1972 and that he has been working under B.M Bagaria, Solicitor, Calcutta since 1.9.1972 as an Assistant/Solicitor.