Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THESE three matters have been assigned to this Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of which the first one has been assigned as a consequence of reference by a Division Bench of this Court dated 17th March, 2008 passed in F.M.A. No.768 of 2007 and the other two matters have been referred to by another Division Bench before whom these two writ-applications were assigned on the request of two learned Single Judge of this Court because of importance of the question involved. The said Division Bench was, however, of the view that since the other one, namely, the case of Tulsi Roy, has already referred to a larger bench, these two writ- applications should also be heard along with the same. Consequently, these two writ-applications have also been assigned before us.
(2.) WE have heard all these three matters together as the points involved in all these three matters are substantially the same. In the case of Tulsi Roy (Supra), for the purpose of appointment of a clerical staff, The concerned school took prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools and asked the employment exchange to sponsor the names of the eligible candidate. Accordingly, the names of 20 candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange including that of the appellant. The name of the respondent No. 1, however, was not sponsored by the employment exchange. He came up with a writ-application before a learned Single Judge of this Court and prayed for permission to participate at the process of selection. The learned Single Judge by order dated October 13, 2006 allowed such writ-application and directed the school authority to permit the writ-petitioner to participate in the process of selection. The writ-petitioner, accordingly, appeared at the interview and became successful as he was placed at the first position in the panel whereas the appellant, one of the sponsored candidates by the employment exchange, was placed in the second position.
(3.) THE appellant, the second empanelled person in the panel, thus, preferred an appeal before the Division Bench against the order allowing the writ-application of the respondent No. 1 with the leave to prefer an appeal and the learned Division Bench after taking into consideration various decisions was of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be set aside and the writ-application should be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that there were conflicting views on the subject and in the case of Uttam Kumar Matty v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2007)4 CHN page 499, a Division Bench of this Court having directed that an advertisement should be published before making any such selection, and at the same time, THEir Lordships having some doubts as to whether the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions as regards the necessity of advertisement for recruitment applies to the Government sponsored schools, THEir Lordships referred the matter for a decision by a Larger Bench. In the other two applications which were referred to a Division Bench, the question was whether a person who was not been sponsored by employment exchange can straightway file a writ-application praying for permitting him to appear at the interview for the post of Group-D staff of a Government sponsored school.;