- (1.) TWO writ petitions filed by different petitioners are taken up for consideration simultaneously as both the writ petitions relate to a common cause of action. First of such writ petitions being W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009 was filed by Sannyasi Charan Kayal, a candidate who participated in the selection process for the post of Group "D" in Jukiveri Matangini Bidyapith in the District of Purba Medinipur. The said petitioner prayed for cancellation of the panel which was prepared by the selection committee on the basis of the interview held on 30th August, 2009 and for recasting the said panel by excluding one of the candidates namely, Smt. Anita Shit, the respondent no.10 as she allegedly adopted unfair means in course of selection test.
(2.) THE other writ petition being W.P. No. 12670(W) of 2011 was filed by the school authority challenging an order dated 28-06-2011 by which the District Inspector of School (SE), Purba Medinipur, cancelled his earlier order dated 11-04-2011. By the order dated 11-04-2011, the said District Inspector of Schools refused to consider the said panel as the school authority resolved in its resolution dated 16-03-2011 for calling back the said panel which was submitted to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval. THE petitioners therein also prayed for issuance of directions upon the concerned authority for filling up the said post through School Service Commission immediately. Let me now consider the merits of the aforesaid two writ petitions in the facts and circumstances under which those two writ petitions were filed. Admittedly, the said selection process was initiated by the school authority on the basis of a prior permission granted by the concerned District Inspector of Schools under the old Recruitment Rules of 2005. Names of suitable candidates were sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange. Some of the candidates also applied for the said post by offering their candidature. A selection committee was constituted by the managing Committee of the said school for holding the selection test. Interview of the eligible candidates was taken by the selection committee on 30th August, 2009. On the basis of the performance of the participating candidates, a panel was prepared by the selection committee and the said panel was placed before the Managing Committee of the said school. After examining the said panel, the Managing Committee of the said school forwarded the same along with the other relevant papers to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval. Before the said panel was taken up for consideration by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner of W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009 with the concerned District Inspector of Schools, stating therein that the candidature of the respondent no.10 of the said writ petition should be cancelled as she adopted unfair means in the selection test. She also lodged similar complaint with the Managing Committee of the said school and prayed for recasting the panel on the basis of the interview held on 30th August, 2009 after excluding the respondent no.10 from the zone of consideration as she adopted unfair means in the selection test. Before any decision was taken by the concerned District Inspector of Schools on the complaint made by the said complainant, the school authority adopted a resolution on 16- 03-2011 for cancellation of the said panel on two- fold grounds; firstly, for the reason of the complaint made against some candidates for adoption of unfair means in the selection test and secondly, for the reason that one of the members of the selection committee namely, Panchayat nominee left without awarding marks to the participating candidates. It was, thus, resolved by the Managing Committee in the said meeting, that the panel which was sent to the concerned District Inspector of Schools should be recalled and the school authority be permitted to complete the said process by holding re-interview of those candidates, who participated in the selection process earlier. The said resolution was forwarded to the said District Inspector of Schools, who, on receipt thereof, refused to consider the said panel. The said District Inspector of Schools, however, rejected the school authority"s prayer for completion of the said selection process by re-interview of those candidates who participated in the selection process earlier. On the contrary, the school authorities were requested to submit the vacancy statement to the concerned Additional District Inspector of Schools for filling up the said vacancy through School Service Commission as per the new Recruitment Rules of 2009 which came into operation in the meantime. The said decision was communicated to the school authority by the said District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 11th April, 2011, which was subsequently recalled by the concerned District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 20th June, 2011, by taking note of the pendency of the W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009. The said order which was communicated to the school authority by the District Inspector of Schools vide the letter dated 20th June, 2011 is the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petition being W.P. No. 12670(W) of 2011 filed by the school authority.
(3.) LET me now consider as to how far the school authority was justified in adopting the subsequent resolution on 16th March, 2011. On perusal of the said resolution, this Court finds that without inquiring into the allegation made by the said complainant and without coming to a definite conclusion as to the correctness of the allegation regarding adoption of unfair means by the respondent no.10 in the selection test, the school authority resolved to call back the panel which was submitted to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his consideration. The other reason for which the school authority decided to call back the said panel from the said District Inspector of Schools, was for refusal of one of the members of the selection committee to award marks to the participating candidates.;