- (1.) This writ petition is by an interviewee in the selection of assistant teacher for physical education of Nayabasan Janakalyan Vidyapith in the District of West Midnapore, West Bengal. The interview was held on July 30,1997. A panel was prepared on July 30,1997 itself where the petitioner was first. The interview sheet is annexed as Annexure-D to the writ petition at page 32.
(2.) This panel seems to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Midnapore on May 24,1999. But the writ petitioner was no where in this list of selected candidates. The second and third candidates in the panel, namely, Santanu Bhowmik and Atanu Pattanayak were selected with the position first and second. But the writ petitioner being first in the panel was not selected and in his place one Ajoy Kumar Senapati who was in the panel but with no rank was selected. This is a very old writ petition. It appeared before Lala, J. and Kundu J. when directions for affidavits were made in the presence of the State. No affidavit has been filed. None appears for any of the respondents. After nearly ten years the matter appeared before me on October 23, 2009 when direction was made for production of records. Direction was also made upon the writ petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit to explain his income position so that the Court could consider compensation to be given to him in the event he succeeded in the writ application. Neither the records are produced nor any affidavit has been filed.
(3.) Some explanation was called for to explain the complete ouster of the petitioner from the selected list after having appeared first in the interview list. As I have said earlier the second and third candidates from the panel prepared after interview have been selected as is noticed from the selection list prepared by the District Inspector of Schools. In the absence of any affidavit-in-opposition by the State it is to be presumed that they have no explanation to afford. At least somewhere in the records some explanation or some reason ought to have been there for excluding the writ petitioner in the selected list. On the face of available records the action of the District Inspector of Schools in not selecting the writ petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory.;