Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THIS Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a third party in a writapplication and is directed against an order dated 19th March, 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge, on the first day of moving the writ-application, disposed of the same by permitting the writpetitioner to appear at the interview for the purpose of selection for the post of Group-D staff of a school along with other sponsored candidates. His Lordship further directed that the case of the writ-petitioner should be considered at par with other sponsored candidates for such selection and the age-bar of the writpetitioner should be condoned.
(2.) PURSUANT to such direction given by His Lordship, the writ-petitioner appeared and stood first in the selection whereas the appellant before us was the second candidate in the panel. The appellant, with the leave of this Court, has preferred this appeal on the allegation that the writ-petitioner was not eligible to be selected for the post as he had crossed the age limit fixed for the said post. According to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Single Judge erred in law in condoning the age-bar of the writ-petitioner when statute has fixed a particular age limit for the post. Mr. Ekramul Bari, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the School Authority and Mr. Jaydip Kar, the learned advocate on behalf of the writpetitioner, have opposed the aforesaid contention of the appellant and have contended that a High Court sitting in a writ-jurisdiction has the power and authority of condoning the age-limit created for a post in a given situation. According to the learned advocates, the writ-petitioner was acting as a Group D staff in the selfsame school for a long time on an ad hoc basis and at the time of entering the said service of school on an ad hoc basis, he was within the prescribed the age limit. According to those learned advocates, the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality in condoning the age-bar fixed under the statute. In support of such contention, they relied upon the following decisions: 1. Sayadul Islam vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2010 (Vol.1) CHN (CAL) Page-497; 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre, reported in (2008) 2 SCC Page-717; 3. Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti (Regd.), reported in (2007) 13 SCC Page-53; Union of India and Anr. vs. B.C. Chaturvedi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC Page-750 (para 20,21,23);
(3.) KHAGESH Kumar and Ors. vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court Page-471; Sm. Debirani Bhattacharjee and Anr. vs. District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Burdwan and Ors., reported in 1996 (2) CHN Page-415 (para 20). Mr. Biswas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, on the other hand, relied upon the following decisions: 1. Sanjay Kumar Majjul vs. Chairman UPSC and Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 42 (para 23 to 28); 2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Sajal Kumar Roy and Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 671 (Para 4 and 12); 3. State of Uttaranchal vs. Alok Sharma and Ors., reported in (2009) 7 SCC 647 (para 10, 15, 22, 24 and26); 4. Rina Dutta and Ors. vs. Anjali Mahato and Ors., reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 168 (para 3); 5. Kanailal Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 174; 6. Sri Sukumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2009 (1) CLJ 642 (para 7, 10);;