Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

on March 14, 2007 passed the following order:

"Let affidavit of service filed in Court be kept on record. The petitioner files this writ application for a direction upon the respondent authorities to allow her to participate in the interview scheduled to be held on March 18, 2007 for preparation of a panel to appointment Group D staff (under reserved category) in Radhikapur High School, P.O Radhikapur, District-Uttar Dinajpur. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of clause (5)(a) of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, only the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange concerned have the right to participate in the above interview. In this writ application constitutional validity of the above rule is under challenge. Reliance is placed on an order dated September 21, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CAN No. 7295 of 2006 arising out of MAT No. 3687 of 2006. By the above interim order, the appellant was allowed to participate in the interview. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, in my opinion, this matter cannot be decided without giving opportunity to the parties to file affidavits. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of three weeks from the date, reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. Liberty to mention before the appropriate bench for hearing of the matter.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record appearing on behalf of the petitioner to communicate this order to the respondent authorities along with a copy of this writ application. The respondent authorities are directed to act on the basis of such communication."

13. Sometime thereafter, Puspa had presented W.P. 10178(W) of 2010 on May 11, 2010. It was pleaded therein that she had attended the interview conducted on August 10, 2008. She was unaware of the fate of the panel prepared pursuant to the interview that was conducted and, accordingly, had submitted a representation before the DIoS on May 3, 2010. Referring to the fact that from a reliable source she had come to learn having secured the 1st position in the panel, a prayer was made for consideration and approval of the panel. Since the representation did not evoke any positive response from the DIoS, Puspa had presented such writ petition claiming, inter alia, the following relief:

18. Hearing such submission, Mr. Ziaul Islam, learned advocate who had appeared for the State on a previous occasion was called upon to produce the relevant records relating to approval of the panel that was prepared by the managing committee of the school for appointment on the post of matron. The records were produced on February 23, 2015. It appeared therefrom that the transfer certificate issued by Nahit Junior High School was part thereof, suggesting that Puspa had submitted the same in support of her educational qualification at the time of attending the interview. It was then that Mr. Mukhopadhyay submitted of Puspa having earlier moved W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 (seeking a direction on the authorities of the school to allow her participate in the interview), wherein the transfer certificate issued by Mohipal High School had been annexed. Considering such submission, the file of W.P. 12045 (W) of 2005 was requisitioned and hearing was adjourned till March 3, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the file of W.P. 12045 (W) of 2005 was placed before me. On perusal of page 25 thereof, the submission of Mr. Mukhopadhyay as recorded in the order dated February 23, 2015 was found to be correct. It was at that stage Mr. Chatterjee had submitted that Puspa had not presented W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 at all and that her signature available in the other writ petitions/affidavits should be compared. The signatures have since been compared. It is difficult to form an opinion either in favour of Mr. Mukhopadhyay or Mr. Chatterjee. Opinion of a handwriting expert could have been obtained in respect of the two signatures but having regard to the disclosures made by Mr. Chaturvedi, learned advocate for Sarama, which I propose to refer hereafter, I do not consider it necessary to obtain any report of a handwriting expert.

28. The signature of Puspa in the vakalatnama available on the file of W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 has been compared with her signatures in the other writ petitions/affidavits. As has been observed above, prima facie, a view that Puspa did not sign the vakalatnama could be formed on comparison of her other available signatures. But merely because of such reason Puspa cannot derive any advantage. In W.P. 12045(W) of 2005, Puspa laid a claim for participation in the interview for the same post of matron for which Sabita had also expressed interest. Sabita and Puspa were competitors and, therefore, it is too far-fetched to think that Sabita or anyone else would set up Puspa as a competitor in the selection process by persuading her to file a separate writ petition. Two professionals (the advocates) were engaged in filing of W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 and there is nothing on record to accept that the professionals rendered gratuitous service. Puspa has not been able to disabuse my mind that there was no necessity for her to express interest for appointment on the post of matron and, therefore, had no occasion to approach the Court in 2005. If indeed that be so, why Puspa presented the writ petition in 2007 for obtaining an order for attending the interview for the selfsame post of matron has not been explained. Although the signature of Puspa may not tally on comparison, as noticed above, there remains a lurking suspicion that W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 was moved on her instructions but the vakalatnama did not bear her signature. It is difficult to believe that a writ petition was moved on behalf of Puspa before this Court for obtaining an order without any reason at all. Be that as it may.