- (1.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2010 passed by the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in Case No. O.A. 754 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on merits.
(2.) Going through the records, we find that the petitioner herein was selected for appointment to the post of Excise Constable in the year 1995 but ultimately the said petitioner was not appointed to the post due to the pendency of a criminal case against the said petitioner. There is no dispute that the respondent authorities refused to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the police verification report which was admittedly, not favourable due to the pendency of a criminal case against the said petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner was exonerated by the competent Criminal Court in respect of the said criminal case and thereafter the said petitioner approached the competent authority for appointing him to the post in question pursuant to the earlier selection. Since the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for appointment was not considered by the authority for a considerable time, an application was filed by the said petitioner befora the learned Tribunal in the year 2006 which was numbered as O.A. 1468 of 2006.
(3.) The learned Tribunal by the order dated 15th June, 2006 finally disposed of the said earlier application by directing the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner. THE concerned authority, namely, the Superintendent of Excise, Nadia thereafter, passed an order on 7th January, 2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on the ground that the said petitioner had crossed the age bar. Challenging the aforesaid decision, the petitioner filed another application before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th February, 2010. Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously decided several other issues which CHN 2010(2) 3/21 were never raised before the said learned Tribunal for consideration. The learned Advocate of the State-respondents however, disputed the same.;