- (1.) All these cases were heard together. 1. On 8.4.2011, this Court passed the following Order :- "Learned Counsel for the Petition pleaded extreme urgency in the matter and has requested that although this Court takes to other matters on Friday, this case however may be taken up since it is very urgent. Accordingly, this case has been taken up. Put up this case on 13.4.2011 at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner in the meantime, and without prejudice to his rights and contentions involved in this Writ Petition, will be allowed to be counselled and the Respondents will provisionally allow him to be empanelled in the merit list without prejudice to their own rights. Let it however be recorded that in the event the Petitioner succeeds, then he shall be entitled to other consequential benefits but in the event the Writ Petition fails, then even if he has been provisionally empanelled, he shall lose his status immediately. Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being furnished, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned Counse1 for the Parties, on usual undertakings. Sd/- (Tapen Sen, J.)"
(2.) My attention was drawn to the fact that against the said Order passed on 08/4/2011, the matter went up in Appeal and by an Order dated 12/4/2011, that Order was modified. The relevant portion of the Order passed by the Division Bench reads, as follows: "The counselling exercise which is to be undertaken in terms of the regulation, may be taken and for this purpose if the dates are not announced, may be announced. However, 21 (twenty one) seats as stated by learned Advocate General, for these 21 (twenty one) petitioners/candidates in two separate matters shall be kept apart. It is made clear, in the event the learned trial Judge finds, upon hearing the writ petitions, that they or any of them are is qualified and eligible, obviously the learned trial Judge will pass suitable order (sic) regard their counseling exercise on subsequent dates. It appears from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge has fixed the date of hearing of the writ petition tomorrow. We, therefore, request the learned trial Judge to take up the hearing on day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, so that the matter can be heard out finally and the fate of these candidates can be decided at an early date. We feel that in a matter of this nature, prayer for adjournment of hearing should not be entertained except on the ground of illness of the learned arguing counsel or any other unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances. It is made clear that before or during the counselling exercise, if any disturbance is attempted to be created by any person whosoever, the authority concerned shall forthwith ask for police assistance and Officer-in-Charge of Bowbazar Police Station shall forthwith render all assistance and if requires will deploy police personnel including lady police officials and officers, and the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station shall identify the real person or persons on the spot and/or the person master minding to create disturbance and thereafter cost of deployment of police force shall be recovered from that person(s) on identification being made as public demand. The appeals and the applications are that disposed of keeping all points open and it is made clear, we have not decided anything on merit of the case. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties."
(3.) On the basis of the aforementioned Order passed by the Division Bench, this Court has finally heard all the three Writ Petitions in extenso. The facts in each case are briefly stated, as under : A. In Re: W.P. No. 6347 (W) of 2011;