K.J. Sengupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging decision making process of appointment of a teacher, and the approval of the panel followed by appointment lastly. It has got chequered and interesting history. The fact is that Management of Akhriganj High School which is at village Akhriganj and the district of Murshidabad situate almost by the border of the State of Bihar wanted to recruit an Assistant Teacher in English. So following the old recruitment Rules, names from the Employment Exchange were sought for by the Managing Committee of the school. for holding a test. Prior approval was obtained from the D.I. concerned who did mention that B.Ed. qualification will be a preferential one. The Employment Exchange concerned did sent a few names along with the petitioner's name. Admittedly at the time of sponsoring, the petitioner did not have any qualification of B.Ed., whereas the private respondent No. 7, who was eventually selected, approved and appointed to the post in question did possess. The petitioner claims that at the time of interview he did produce a document purported to be a marksheet of B.Ed. examination issued by an University situate in the State of Bihar. His case is that ignoring the above marksheet the selection committee did not award the requisite statutory marks of 15 to his credit; as a result he lagged behind the first candidate. Had the said marks been added to his credit he could have easily occupied-first position defeating the respondent No. 7.
(2.) It is the claim of the petitioner that the relevant Recruitment Rules as clarified in 1996 by the Director of School Education that at the time of interview evidence of requisite qualification may be established. So on the aforesaid background a civil suit was filed before the appropriate civil court claiming appropriate relief which are almost identical in nature as those in the writ petition.
(3.) The suit was filed, and proceeded without any difficulty and disruption and an interlocutory order of injunction was also passed in favour of the petitioner herein and the same remained operative for sometime. But, subsequently the petitioner as advised withdrew the suit with liberty to file fresh one. It is submitted and stated that this writ petition was filed even before withdrawal of the suit, keeping the same pending. This relevant and material facts were never disclosed. Much has been told and commented about apparent mis-statement and suppression of material facts and whether the court of enquity should hear or grant relief or not. I would have considered this aspect of the matter with all seriousness and the factual rectitude and cleanliness of the litigant is a sine qua non to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226. For the proposition I need not dilate any more nor I wish to give any reference and authority as it is such a well settled proposition of law that needs no formal reiteration. But Justice Lala has taken care at the initial stage while examining this aspect. In spite of all these His Lordship has not dismissed in limine, rather His Lordship was inclined to hear on affidavits. True it is a mis-statement but this is an absolutely procedural aspect and this procedural law cannot stand in the way in pursuit of seeking remedy against infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution of India. Equal opportunity in the public employment is guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and according to the writ petitioner such right has been infringed so the entertainment and hearing of the writ petition on merit is not impermissible even on the face of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner having stated on oath of withdrawal of suit though on date of filing of the writ petition the suit was very much pending, but later withdrawn.;