- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by brother Dasadhikari, J. by which the writ petition was disposed of by the following order: It appears from the Government Order No. 924-Edn.(C.S.)/10H-10/03 dated 26th November, 2007 that for fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post of steno-typist two avenues are open; one the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and the other persons who are in regular employment of the College and rendered five years regular service in Group "D" Category. I find that the private respondent is not fulfilling any of those two criteria and therefore, he ought not to have been allowed to appear at the interview since he was not eligible candidate. Accordingly, the College authorities are directed to prepare the panel afresh thereby putting the petitioner at the top and in case any appointment had already been issued, that should be cancelled and a fresh panel to be prepared and appointment should be made accordingly. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent No. 6.
(2.) Mr. Das, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant/respondent No. 6, submitted that his client was permitted to appear at the interview by an order dated 12th August, 2008 passed in W.P. 19372(W) of 2008 applying a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2007 2 CalHN 761, wherein the following views were taken: 17. Principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao are set out hereunder: 6...Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. 18. The Executive order issued by the Government of West Bengal under Memo No. 830-Edn.(CS) dated 31st October, 1995 is not consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision which has also been affirmed by the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where similar question was in issue. Therefore, the aforesaid executive order dated 31st October, 1995 has to be read subject to law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao which was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decisions mentioned hereinbefore. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, the executive order dated 31st October, 1995 is not required to be challenged by a separate writ petition for quashing the same since the said executive order can be followed subject to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove. 20. Thus, the restriction put by the aforesaid executive order dated 31st October, 1995 to the effect that only Employment Exchange sponsored candidates are to be considered for employment cannot be sustained and the respondent authorities cannot prevent the appellant or anybody from participating in the interview for filling up the vacant posts on the basis of or pursuant to the aforesaid executive order issued by the Government of West Bengal dated 31st October, 1995. 21. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao , we also hold that the appropriate authority of the department or undertaking or establishment shall consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied for filling up any vacant post or posts along with the Employment Exchange sponsored candidates strictly in accordance with law in order to ensure equal opportunity in the matter of employment to all the eligible candidates and any executive order or circular issued by any authority in this regard has to be read and/or followed subject to the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) He, therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court fell into an error in holding that the writ petitioner though empanelled as candidate No. 1 could not be appointed because he was neither sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor was he an existing employee of the College in question.;