- (1.) In Re : CAN 1502 of 2010 This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 9th September, 2009 whereby and where under the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.
(2.) Going through the impugned order under appeal we find that the learned single Judge specifically held that an empanelled candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment. It is true that an empanelled candidate has no right to claim appointment, but the said empanelled candidate has every right to know the fate of the panel since the concerned authorities are under an obligation and duty-bound to take appropriate decision in respect of the panel within a specified period: Every empanelled candidate has right to be considered for appointment to the vacant post and such consideration cannot be made effectively by the competent authority without taking appropriate decision with regard to the approval of the panel within the prescribed time limit under the Statute. The competent authority cannot withhold its decision with regard to approval of the panel for an indefinite period when specific time limit has been prescribed under the Statute. In the present case, Rule 9(7) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2005 is very much relevant and the same is, therefore, set out hereunder: "9(7) (a) The Selection Committee shall, within fifteen days from the date of the interview, prepare a panel and submit the same to the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority shall, within fifteen days from the date of submission of the panel by the selection committee, examine the panel and, alongwith all relevant papers, submit the same to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. (c) The District Inspector of Schools shall, within one month from the date of receipt of the panel, convey his decision thereon."
(3.) In terms of the aforesaid Rule, District INspector of Schools concerned should take appropriate decision with regard to the approval of the panel and convey the decision within one month from the date of receipt of the panel. Undisputedly, the District INspector of Schools concerned did not convey the decision with regard to the approval of the panel in question till date and thus violated the clear mandate of Rule 9(7)(c) of the aforesaid Rules, 2005. In the aforesaid circumstances, an empanelled candidate is entitled to file a writ petition for issuance of appropriate-direction to the concerned authority, i.e. the District Inspector of Schools concerned for conveying the decision with regard to the approval of the panel in terms of Rule 9(7)(c). In the present case, since the District Inspector of Schools concerned failed and neglected to take appropriate decision with regard to the approval of the panel and convey the decision in terms of Rule 9(7)(c), the appellant being an empanelled candidate Is entitled to apply before this Court in its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction for issuance of appropriate directions to the concerned authority.;