- (1.) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that on 1st October, 2007, this Court passed an interim order in an earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, being W.P. 19630 (W) of 2007. For convenience, relevant portion of the said interim order is reproduced hereinbelow - "The petitioner's grievance is that he stood first in a panel of appointment of a post of a para-teacher in Basudevpur, F.P. School in the District North 24 - Parganas. The photo copy of the score sheet has been annexed as P-4 to the writ petition from which the petitioner's name appear to be on top. The grievance is that the Project Officer is not considering the panel regarding his approval. I am of the opinion steps should be taken for the purpose of finalization of the panel by the Project Officer and he must take a decision as regards the approval of panel in question at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st October, 2007. The matter shall appear in the same position on 15thNovember,2007."
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid interim order, the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, North 24 Parganas, took a decision in the matter on 27th March, 2008, which is now sought to be assailed before this Court in the instant writ petition. Relevant portion of the decision of the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, North 24 Parganas, is quoted hereinbelow:- "Having heard the petitioner/complainant and considering the materials on record and the judgment of learned SDJM Court Barasat, and facts and circumstances of the case, the Selection Sub-Committee of Sarva Siksha Mission is of the view that. The Md. Abul Hossain is a convicted person in a criminal case vide No.-GR-164/94 under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. That learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Barasat convicted the said person. It appears from the photocopy of an application for copy before the Learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge at Barasat, that the applicant has filed an application for copy of some document lying in the record of the appeal. That Md. Abul Hossain did not supply any certified copy of judgment of criminal appeal vide N0.-6O of 2003. That we cannot realise the fate of the Criminal Appeal case. We are not clear whether the said convicted person namely Md. Adul Hossain is now under conviction or not. Md. Abul Hossain also by suppressing the material fact (Conviction in Criminal Case) submitted application for engagement of Additional Para Teacher at Basudebpur F.P. School and also filed Writ Application before Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and in the said Writ application (WP-19630 (W) of 2007) he did not mention or annex the conviction order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court at Barasat dated 30th January, 2003 in GR case vide No.-GR-164 of 1994 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the materials on record it is ordered that at this state name of the Petitioner cannot be included in view of the fact that the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by learned SDJM Barasat has not been set aside by any competent Court of law and in view of the fact that the Petitioner suppressed the material fact that he had been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 1 (One) year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to S.I. for another 3 (Three) months. There is nothing on record that the Hon'ble Court passed any final order for engagement of the Petitioner, The copy of the Order passed by Hon'ble Court is only an interim order which has been passed ex parte." It appears that in the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to rescind and/or cancel the order dated 27th March, 2008, passed by the District Project Officer and further commanding the said District Project Officer from acting on the basis of the said order dated 27th March, 2008, in any manner whatsoever. The question that comes up for consideration in such a fact situation is whether the instant writ petition is maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier writ petition, being W.P. 19630 (W) of 2007, is yet to be disposed of.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Advocate representing the writ petitioner, a contempt application was filed by the writ petitioner in the earlier matter alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 1st October, 2007. The said contempt application, being CPAN 775 of 2008, was disposed of on 12th March, 2010, with liberty to the petitioner to take such steps as may be advised for assailing the order passed by the concerned authority. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the liberty granted by the Court sitting in its contempt jurisdiction, the instant writ petition has been taken out to assail the decision of the concerned District Project Officer rendered on 27th March, 2008. He submits that in such circumstances the instant writ petition is maintainable. This Court, however, is unable to accept the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the instant writ petition is maintainable in view of the liberty granted by the Court in the order dated 12th March, 2010, passed in CPAN 775 of 2008. The contempt application was taken out by the writ petitioner in the earlier matter alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 1st October, 2007, which was nothing but an interim order. The liberty granted by the Court, sitting in its Special Contempt Jurisdiction, on 12th March, 2010, to the applicant/writ petitioner to take such step as may be advised for assailing the decision of the District Project Officer dated 27th March, 2008, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as liberty granted to the applicant/writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier writ petition, being W.P. 19630 (W) of 2007, was still pending final adjudication.;