- (1.) The appellant is an aspirant for the post of a para teacher in Life Science in Barsiga Fulur Anchal Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the said school ) in the District of Birbhum. The appellant is dissatisfied by the order dated 18th July, 2011 by which the learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the materials on record, disposed of the writ petitions filed by the appellant and the private respondent No.9 by directing the School Authority to consider the eligibility of the private respondent being the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 7444(W) of 2010, after taking into consideration of his residential certificate which was forwarded to the School Authority by the District Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as DPO), Sarva Siksha Avijan of Birbhum and recast the panel in the light of the communication made by the DPO, Sarva Siksha Avijan of Birbhum to the Secretary of the said School as contained in the letter dated 19th March, 2010 and submit the said panel to the concerned DPO, Sarva Siksha Avijan of Birbhum within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order and the concerned DPO, Sarva Siksha Avijan of Birbhum was directed to take the final decision on the issue regarding grant of approval to the said panel within four weeks from the date of submission of such panel.
(2.) The principal grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the learned Trial Judge could not have directed the said authorities to consider the residential certificate of the other writ petitioner, namely, Partha Sarathi Mondal since the said candidate failed to submit the residential certificate along with the application, and accordingly, is not eligible to be considered for the said post. The residential certificate is an essential requirement which a candidate must possess since a candidate for the post would be required to have his residence near the school and within a particular distance from the school. Partha Mondal did not submit such residential proof and it was only in March 2010 in a complaint made to the District Project Officer regarding the said selection process he forwarded such documents along with the application he claimed to have submitted to the school containing such alleged residential proof. It was submitted that there is no proof that the residential certificate was submitted along with the said application. In fact, the schools in the affidavit have categorically stated that the application of Partha Mondal could not be considered since Partha Mondal and another candidate Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay did not submit the residential certificate along with the application at the time of scrutiny. Accordingly, they were not called for the interview by the Selection Committee of the said school. The School Authorities have also, in reply to the letter dated 19th March, 2010, informed the DPO about such deficiencies in the application. Since the appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria, the School Authority rightly rejected the said application.
(3.) The other contention of the appellant is that the writ petition being W.P.No.7444 (W) of 2010 should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in preferring the said writ application being W.P.No.7444 (W) of 2010, although Partha Mondal was fully aware of the fact in 2004 itself that his candidature was not considered and a panel has been prepared. In fact, the alleged complaint of Partha Mondal dated 26th August, 2004 would clearly show that Partha Mondal was aware that his case was not considered by the Selection Committee but he did not challenge the said selection process and waited for six long years. The appellant submits that the panel was prepared by the Selection Committee on 21st August, 2004 and was sent for approval to the DPO on 21st August, 2004 but the matter was kept pending by the DPO. Due to such inaction on the part of DPO, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P.No.26575 (W) of 2007, in which an order was passed on 21st February, 2008. The learned Single Judge in the order duly recorded that since there are some defects in the communication made by the school to the DPO, the panel was returned to the Headmaster of the School so as to enable him to correct the said defect in the memo dated 24th January, 2006 and submit the panel after such rectification.;