- (1.) THE petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 6, 2006 are questioning two orders of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24-Parganas dated August 25, 2006 (at p.31) and October 20, 2006 (at p.34). THE District Inspector of Schools (in short DIS) permitted the authorities of Bholakhali Adibashi Siksha Niketan in the District North 24-Parganas to appoint a clerk in the school. He ordered that the recruitment rules under Memo No.2066/GA dated October 27, 1995 would be applicable to the selection process.
(2.) ACCORDING to the provisions of the recruitment rules, only those candidates whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange would have been entitled to participate in the selection process, and the employment exchange sponsored names of twenty candidates. One Susanta Patra whose name was not sponsored by the employment exchange obtained an order dated November 14, 2005 from this Court directing the school authorities to permit him to participate in the process. ACCORDINGly, the school authorities permitted Susanta to participate. The selection committee prepared a list of three candidates placing Susanta in the first position and one Dilip Kumar Das in the second position. Accepting the list, the school authorities forwarded it with all relevant papers to the DIS for approval according to the provisions of the recruitment rules. Dilip lodged a complaint with the DIS that though he was originally placed in the first position of the list, the Headmaster of the institute changed the list positions for favouring Susanta, his chosen candidate. Since no action was taken Dilip moved W.P.No.9810(W) of 2006 under art.226. By an order dated July 13, 2006 the petition was disposed directing the DIS to make necessary inquiry, examine the materials placed before him and give a decision. He passed the order dated August 25, 2006 that Dilip was entitled to the first position. He then issued the order dated October 20, 2006 directing the school to submit the corrected list. This petition has been brought by the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the school. Susanta losing his position did not find any reason to question the order dated August 25, 2006. The DIS recorded that a member of the selection committee appearing before him categorically stated at the time of inquiry that Susanta was a nephew of the Secretary of the school and a relative of the expert of the selection committee. The expert was one Amal Kumar Patra, the Headmaster of neighbouring secondary school. Sri Matilal Patra, who was the Secretary of the school, was not a member of the selection committee (as submitted by counsel), though he participated in the meeting of the Managing Committee dealing with the list. The question is whether the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the school were entitled to question the orders of the DIS. The orders could be questioned by the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the school only if it can be said that they were aggrieved thereby, and they could be aggrieved by the orders only if the orders infringed their right, if any. The list that was the subject matter of the dispute did not create any right of the Managing Committee and the Headmaster. It was prepared by the selection committee constituted by the Managing Committee and it required approval of the DIS who was empowered to examine all aspects. After examining all materials the DIS found that Dilip was entitled to the first position in the list. The decision and the orders affected right of Susanta who had been placed in the first position and Susanta decided not to question the decision and the orders. The person who was to be aggrieved actually did not feel aggrieved by the decision and the orders. The Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the school are, as a matter of fact, espousing the case of Susata who himself accepted the decision and the orders of the DIS. A member of the selection committee went to the extent of saying that the Secretary of the school and the expert of the selection committee did everything possible for ensuring Susanta 's employment. On these facts, I am unable to hold that the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of the school had any right to question the decision and the orders.
(3.) I am also of the view that the decision and the orders do not call for any interference in exercise of power under art.226. For these reasons, I dismiss the petition. No costs. Certified xerox.;