HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging an action on the part of the respondent authorities in discriminating the petitioner with the other similar circumstanced person in not giving appointment to the post of a primary teacher even after securing the higher marks.
(2.) BRIEF facts of this writ petition is that the petitioner?s candidature was sponsored by the concerned employment exchange to the District Primary School Council, Hooghly for consideration for appointment to the post of assistant teacher. Pursuant to such sponsorship the petitioners were called to submit their testimonials and were found eligible for an interview. It would be noteworthy that the names of the petitioners were sponsored under OBC category by the concerned employment exchange. The petitioner contends that after the interview the panel was prepared by the District Primary School Council, Hooghly incorporating the names of the successful candidates in different categories and also showing the highest and lowest marks obtained by the candidate in different category. It is a further case of the petitioner that they have obtained higher marks than the lowest mark fixed for an OBC category and as such their names should have been included in the said panel. Challenging the aforesaid action, the petitioner filed writ petition being WP no. 23365(w) of 2005 which was disposed of on 6th March 2008 directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent no. 4 rejected the claim of the petitioners being not entitled for appointment. It is contended that another candidate who was similarly circumstanced and who obtained lessor marks than the petitioner no. 1 was given an appointment. In this writ petition prayer is made for directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner no. 1 to the post of assistant teacher and to produce the necessary scripts of the petitioner no. 2 as the marks allotted to the petitioner no. 2 could not have been the marks shown to have been allotted to him.
(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by an order passed by this court in case of Partha Banik (WP 15290(w)/2000) it is held that a more meritorious candidate under the reserved categories who obtained higher marks than the lowest marks set up under the general category should be considered under the general category so as to leave the room for the other less meritorious candidate under the reserved category. It is further argued that in case of Bimal Kanti Sen and Ors. who filed writ petition before this court being WP 19810(w)/2004 the authorities were directed to notionally adjust the panel after putting the OBC candidates who secured more than lessor marks fixed under the general category, into the general category. By referring these two orders the petitioner contends that after the notional adjustment of the panel the lowest mark has been further decreased and the petitioners are eligible having secured higher marks than the lowest marks set up after adjustment of the panel.;