Talukdar, J. - (1.) IN the prism of the Order passed by the Hon'ble trial Court W.P. No. 14999(W) of 2009 on 18.04.2010, whereby the prayer of the petitioner challenging the selection process initiated by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 proved abortive; we would be required to see as to whether the same can pass muster in the trajectory of the sequence of events that have surfaced before us interlaced with the legal position on the strength of various decisions operating in the field.
(2.) THE story of the Appellant dates back to his days of unemployment, which persuaded him to respond to an Advertisement (Page 66 of the Stay Application) issued on 16.09.2008 on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 requiring a Clerk having knowledge of Type Writing in English. In terms of the said Advertisement, the Appellant appeared for the Interview on 02.10.2008. It should be kept in mind in this calendar of events that on 28.07.2008 the District Inspector of Schools (respondent No. 4) had accorded permission for notifying the Post (Page 65 of the Stay Application). Lapse of several months and compounding the agony of unemployment, saw the Appellant approached the Authorities so as to ascertain the result of the Interview held on 02.10.2008. It was brought to his knowledge that on 09.02.2009 respondent No. 4 had cancelled the Panel since the School Authorities (respondent Nos. 5 and (6) did not follow the guidelines (Page 67 of the Stay Application).
(3.) SUBSEQUENT thereof, in terms of the directions passed in the said Notification of respondent No.4, a second advertisement was published on 24.02.2009 (Page 71 of the Stay Application) and second Interview was held on 26.07.2009, which saw the added respondent No.9 in the coveted position. Approach before the Hon'ble Trial Court on the premises that the 24.02.2009 being null and void having proved abortive; saw him in the precincts of this appeal.;