- (1.) The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated October 20,2009 is questioning a decision of the District Magistrate, Murshidabad & District Nodal Officer SSK&MSK, Murshidabad dated September 14,2009 (at p.51) cancelling his appointment to the post of History Samprasarak in Narendrapur MSK, and directing the Managing Committee of the MSK to offer appointment to the private respondent (Samsul Alam).
(2.) The Secretary of the MSK published a notice dated March 10,2008 (at p.30) inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of English Samprasarak and History Samprasarak. There was no prohibition against a candidate applying for both the posts. While the petitioner applied for the post of History Samprasarak, the private respondent submitted an application "for the post of sikhsha samprasarak in History" stating as follows: "In response to your advertisement in the Notice Board of your M.S.K. dated on 10.03.08 inviting applications for the post of siksha samprasarak in English in your institution. I beg to offer myself as a candidate for the same post and Furnished the following particulars in support of my candidature."
(3.) The Secretary of the Managing Committee of the MSK registered the private respondent in the application register under serial no.2 as a candidate for the post of History Samprasarak and under serial no.5 as a candidate for the post of English Samprasarak. But the Scrutiny Committee rejected his application on March 29,2008 on the grounds that he applied for both the posts. The petitioner was selected for the post of History Samprasarak. The private respondent filed W.P.No.6473(W) of 2008 dated April 4,2008 under art.226 questioning the petitioner?s selection. The petitioner accepting the offer of appointment started working as History Samprasarak with effect from May 2,2008.By an order dated May 22,2009 the private respondent?s W.P.No.6473(W) of 2008 was disposed of. The order dated May 22,2009 disposing of W.P.No.6473(W) of 2008 is quoted below: "Consequent to invitation for applications, for vacancies to be filled up for the Madhyamik Sihsha Kendra (MSK), the writ petitioner applied. He offered his candidature both for English and History. It appears from a report dated 12th November,2008, appearing to have been furnished by the B.D.O., Raninagar, that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered because he had offered his candidature for both the subjects. The B.D.O., Raninagar, has also expressed his dissenting view. There is no government order prohibiting such an offer. In spite thereof candidature of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. The writ petitioner claims to be a graduate and he is also possessed of the B.Ed degree. The respondent No.10 who has been chosen by the authority concerned is a graduate simpliciter. Naturally, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that he had better qualification but his candidature was not taken into consideration. The contention of the writ petitioner, prima facie, has some substance. No justification for the aforesaid activity was brought to my notice by the state authority. In the premises, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the writ petitioner and to offer him appropriate relief in the event the contention of the petitioner is upheld by him. This exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties. He shall afford them an opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter he shall decide the matter in accordance with law. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel, for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities." 3. IN compliance with the order of this Court dated May 22,2009 the District Magistrate & District Nodal Officer gave the impugned decision. IN his decision he recorded as follows: "IN application register for both the posts of English and History Samprasaraks the name of the petitioner i.e. Samsul Alam was registered in Sl.No.5 and Sl.No.2 by the Secretary Amjad Molla of the Managing Committee of Narendrapur MSK and the petitioner applied for both the posts on 18.03.2008. But the scrutiny Committee which was formed for the engagement procedure of Samprasaraks in MSK by the Managing Committee of the said MSK rejected the candidature of the petitioner because he had offered his candidature for both the subjects. There is no government order prohibiting such an offer in spite thereof candidature of the petitioner was not taken into consideration." The question is whether the private respondent really applied for both the posts. This question of fact requires a close examination, for the petitioner?s specific case is that though the private respondent did not apply for both the posts, presumably because of the prima facie view of this Court expressed in the order dated May 22,2009 that there was no prohibition against a candidate applying for both the posts, the District Magistrate & District Nodal Officer gave a totally perverse decision.;