J.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order dated August 19, 2009 passed by he learned single Judge. By this order, the learned single Judge had disposed of three writ-petitions being W.P. No. 25967 (W) of 2005 (Manju Das Chandra v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) , W.P. 6826 (W) of 2005 (Manju Das Chandra v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) and W.P. 10661 (W) of 2005 (Bhanu Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal and Ors.).
(2.) The writ-petitioner of the last mentioned writ-petition i.e. Bhanu Bhowmik had filed this appeal impugning the said order. We have heard Mr. Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Bhattacharya had taken us on the merit of the allegation as a genuine grievance to agitate before us. He has complained that all these writ-petitions were disposed of behind his back. The respective subject matters of these writ-petitions relate to the appointment to a Group-D post in Matigara Harasundar High School within the district of Darjeeling and there was a previous direction of this Court that all these matters will be taken up and heard together. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that inspite of such direction, the writ-petitioner of other two writ-petitions had mentioned the matter without serving him any notice and the matter was disposed of on a day when none of these matters was appearing in the list of the learned Trial Judge. In support thereof, he has produced before us copies of the relevant pages of the Daily Cause List of Cases of August 19, 2009 to justify that none of these matters had appeared in the Cause List on that day and, therefore, he did not get any opportunity to contest the same. He has also made a further grievance that in the Writ-Petition being No. W.P. 25967 (W) of 2007, he was not made a party and that there was suppression of the fact that there was an earlier direction that other two matters would be heard together.
(3.) Mr. Shamim Ul Bari, the learned Advocate appeared for the Private-Respondent No. 7, i.e. Smt. Manju Das Chandra who was the writ-petitioner in the other two writ-petition. Mr. Bari makes a verbal denial of the allegation that in the second writ-petition filed by his client, there was no mention of the pendency of the earlier writ-petition. We leave this matter as they are because for the time being we are not entering into the merit of the case.;