Indira Banerjee, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order dated 9th September, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, on Circuit at Port Blair dismissing the application being O.A. No.207/AN/2008 filed by the writ petitioner seeking orders on the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment as Primary School Teacher and/or Graduate Trained Teacher without further delay.
(2.) IT appears that on or about 2nd June, 1992 the respondent authorities requisitioned candidates from the Employment Exchange for filling up 45 temporary posts of Primary School Teachers in the General Category and 3 Primary School Teachers in the Scheduled Tribe Category. In response to the aforesaid requisition the Employment Exchange sponsored 117 candidates of whom 90 belonged to the General category and 27 to the Scheduled Tribes category. All the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well as some candidates who had not been called for interview for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher were called for interview. Out of 193 candidates called for the interview, 166 were from the General category and 27 from the Scheduled Tribes category. Only 157 candidates under the General category and 27 candidates under the Scheduled Tribes category actually appeared for the interview. The Departmental Selection Committee recommended appointment of all Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the General Category a panel was prepared of those who secured 45 marks in the aggregate. The Departmental Selection Committee further recommended that the merit list of the remaining candidates might be maintained separately for temporary appointment in case temporary/maternity leave to avoid inconvenience to students. The validity of the panel was for one year. During the same period candidates were also requisitioned for filling up 20 vacancies of Graduate Trained Teachers in the Humanities stream in schools of different mediums. The interview for appointment was conducted on 9th and 10th October, 1992. The writ petitioner was called for and appeared at the interview but was not selected. Her candidature was however assessed as fit for PST along with some others.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the writ petitioner neither applied for nor appeared in the interview for appointment of Primary School Teachers. As observed above, the panels were valid for one year. However, even after one year i.e. after expiry of the period of validity of the panel, the panel was kept alive for filling up leave vacancies and/or other temporary vacancies. Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.33 of the panel of selected candidates. However, another candidate in the same panel, whose name appeared at Sl. No.35 i.e. Ms. K. Geeta was appointed Primary School Teacher in 2005. Mr. Das further argued that Shri Nil Kanta Bepari, Shri Shankar Mandal, Ms. Maya Dey and Shri Goutam Roy whose names appeared in the same panel of Graduate Trained Teachers as fit for Primary School Teachers like the petitioner got appointment to the post of primary school teacher.;