Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties'. In the writ application, the Petitioner prayed for the following relief 's: (a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus not give effect or further effect to the impugned panel prepared out of the interview held on 24.9.2000 ; (b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus to delete the name of the private Respondent from the panel and to reshuffle the panel by placing the name of the Petitioner in the first position and direct the school authority to send the said panel to the D.I. of School (S.E.) Nadia for approval; (c) Writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from giving effect or further effect to the impugned panel prepared out of the interview dated 24.9.2000 ; (d) Writ in the nature of centenary calling upon the Respondents to produce and/or to transmit all the relevant papers and documents before this Court so that consignable justice may be done.
(2.) WRIT application was moved on November 23, 2000 when Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. granted interim order in terms of prayer (f) till three weeks after the reopening of the Court. Prayer (f) reads as follows: (f) An interim order be passed restraining the Respondents particularly the school authority to act upon the said impugned panel prepared out of the interview dated 24.9.2000 and further directing the D.I. of School (S.E.) Nadia, not to act upon the said panel in any manner, if the same is send by the school authority to him till the disposal of this application. An application for vacating the said interim order was filed on June 15, 2001, registered as C.A.N, No. 509/2001. By my order dated December 19, 2001 said vacating application was disposed of directing to hear the same with main matter. Vacating application was treated as Affidavit -in' -Opposition and the Reply of. said vacating application as a reply of the main writ application. Matter was heard at length on several dates. The facts leading to the writ application are as follows:
(3.) PETITIONER has challenged the panel of Group 'D' staff of the concerned school as was prepared by the Selection Committee upon holding interview of the Petitioner and the other candidates on September 24, 2000. The challenge is centered round to the selection of private Respondent No. 6 Tulsi Banerjee (Biswas). The grounds of challenge are of three folds namely (i) Respondent No. 6 though was a member of Scheduled Caste community by birth but since she got married with a member of higher caste community, she had lost her status as a member of Schedule Caste community and thereby was not legally entitled to have sponsorship of name from Employment Exchange; (ii) that said Respondent's date of birth as recorded in the Employment Exchange register is January 11,1959 and as such she was not even eligible to be selected as a first empanelled candidate and to be appointed in the post in question as she crossed the age bar namely 40 years in terms of the Recruitment Rule issued under Memo No. 2066 G.A. dated October 27, 1995 as effective from December 1, 1995 by Director of School Education, West Bengal, which provides that maximum age limit for appointment in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidate is 40 years; (iii) Selection Committee committed an illegality by selecting the Respondent No. 6 as a first candidate.;