- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was justified in annulling the recruitment in favour of the appellant on the sole ground that in the absence of any sponsoring by the employment exchange, the petitioner could not have at all been considered for the post in question.
(3.) It transpires that the learned Single Judge by orders dated 16/11/1998 and 19/12/1998 directed the authorities concerned to consider the case of the present appellant as well as Respondent 7 in interview notwithstanding the fact that their names had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. This view of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant and Respondent 7 did appear in the interview and though the appellant was found suitable, yet Respondent 7 was found unsuitable. The orders of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to allow the appellant and Respondent 7 to be interviewed were not assailed and thus became final. In that view of the matter, in the second round of litigation, the Division Bench was totally in error to annul the appointment made in favour of the appellant after interviewing him pursuant to the orders of the learned Single Judge, which has attained finality, is without jurisdiction and we are of the considered opinion that the Division bench was in error in setting aside the appointment of the appellant.;