Ashok Kumar Mathur, J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 9th April, 2001 whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and directed the Managing Committee of the School to issue appointment letter in favour of respondent No. 8 within a week from the date of communication of this order. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.
(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner (Mayukh Chattopadhyay) filed the present writ petition praying for deletion of the name of the respondent No. 8 (Kalachand Biswas) who secured first position in the panel dated 27th July, 1995 for the post of Assistant Teacher in English in Nimtala Vidyaniketan (hereinafter referred to as the school) under the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia. The petitioner stood second in the panel. The petitioner also sought for a direction that the panel may be recast and the name of the said Kalachand Biswas be deleted and his name be placed at Serial No. 1 instead of Serial No. 2. The main ground for challenge in the writ petition was that the respondent No. 8 had crossed the age of 35 years prior to sponsoring of his name by the Employment Exchange. The upper age limit is 35 years and since that had been already crossed by the said Kalachand Biswas, therefore, his name should not have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange for selection to the post. The writ petitioner submitted that on 14th June, 1995 the Employment Exchange, Krishnanagar, Nadia, forwarded names of 20 candidates including that of the name of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher in English in Nimtala Vidyaniketan. The essential qualification for the post was B.A. Hons./M.A. in English and the desired ones were B.T./B.Ed./P.G.B.T. and the upper age limit was 35 years. In pursuance of the above communication of the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was called for interview before the Selection Committee on 27th July, 1995 at 1 1.00 a.m. The petitioner accordingly appeared for interview before the Selection Committee. During the interview one of the members of the Selection Committee found that although the petitioner submitted the marksheet for M.A. (English) but the employment exchange card shows the qualification to be B.A. (Hons.) Therefore, an inquiry was made from the petitioner about the discrepancy. The petitioner submitted that he had acquired MA qualification and he had already intimated the same to the Employment Exchange long before, that is on 12th May, 1995 and it had been duly recorded in the records of the Employment Exchange. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of 3 persons and in that the petitioner was placed at No.2 (he was awarded marks for M.A.) and the respondent No. 8, Kalachand Biswas was placed at No. 1. Meanwhile, the appointment in favour of Kalachand Biswas could not be issued. Therefore, the petitioner made inquiry and found that the said Kalachand Biswas was over-aged. In that view of the matter the petitioner made representation to the District Inspector of Schools objecting to the eligibility of the said Kalachand Biswas. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the Employment Exchange by its letter dated 10th June, 1996 informed the respondent No. 6, Secretary, Nimtala Vidyaniketan, that the candidature of the said Kalachand Biswas was withdrawn as he was overaged and there was no relaxation in his favour. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the candidature of the said Kalachand Biswas, first candidate of the panel. An affidavit in opposition was filed by the said Kalachand Biswas and it is alleged that.he is an M.A. B.Ed. and because of his registration his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It was submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, his M.A. qualification was not recorded with the Employment Exchange while sending the name of the petitioner (Mayukh Chattopadhyay) and marks for M.A. qualification had been wrongly awarded to him. It was submitted that the panel was validly prepared.
(3.) Meanwhile when the School authorities did not forward the panel to the District Inspector of Schools, the respondent No. 8, Kalachand Biswas, filed a writ petition which came to be registered as C.O. No. 15384 (w) of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19th September, 1995 by Justice G.R. Bhattacharjee (as he then was) directing the school authorities to forward the matter to the District Inspector of Schools for consideration and approval of the concerned panel and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the question of approval of the panel after hearing the respective parties. In pursuance of the direction given by Justice Bhattacharjee the school authorities forwarded the panel to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 28th December, 1995 directed that the sponsorship of Kalachand Biswas, who stood first in the panel, was correct and marks awarded to the petitioner, Mayukh Chattopadhyay for M.A. should be deleted and the panel should be recast and sent back to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. But no notice was given to Mayukh Chattopadhyay by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools got the confirmation of his order from the Director of School Education and it was directed by the Director of School Education that the school authorities shall recast the panel as directed by the District Inspector of Schools otherwise show cause notice will be issued by the District Inspector of Schools to the Managing Committee of the School. Despite the order passed by the District Inspector. of Schools and the order of the Director of School Education, recasting of the panel was not done by the Managing Committee of the School. In the circumstances, the said Kalachand Biswas filed another writ petition which came to be registered as C.O. No. 6867 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by Justice B.P. Banerjee (as he then was) by his order dated 12th August, 1996 after hearing the school authorities. He directed the school authorities to carry out the decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28th December, 1995 by recasting the panel within a period of one week. That order passed by Justice Banerjee was challenged by no one and it became final. Thereafter, in pursuance of the direction given by Justice Banerjee, the school authorities recast the panel and the position of Kalachand Biswas was retained at No.], the name of Mayukh Chattopadhyay, the petitioner was deleted from the panel because his merit position was reduced because of deduction of marks awarded to him on account of M.A. qualification and a new candidate was elevated in the panel. This panel was forwarded to the District Inspector of School for approval and the District Inspector of Schools approved the panel on 10th October, 1996 subject to the result of the present writ petition filed on 4th January, 1996 by the petitioner, Mayukh Chattopadhyay, challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools and recasting of the panel and retaining of the name of Kalachand Biswas at Serial No. I of the panel and deletion of his name from the panel.;