- (1.) Let affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent No. 3 under his Memo No. 626(3) dated June 4, 2013. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 rejected the proposal for approving a panel for appointment of a non teaching staff (Clerk) of Duba Khoksan Bairdangi K.R. High School, District Malda on the following grounds: (i) The school authority published an advertisement in a daily newspaper while they had received the list of candidates from the concerned employment exchange and even they did not intimate the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Malda regarding the publication of the above advertisement. (ii) In terms of the Clauses (a) and (b) of sub rule 7 of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 2005, the selection committee shall within 15 days from the date of interview prepare a panel and submit the same to the appointing authority. The appointing authority shall within 15 days from the date of submission of panel examine the panel and submit the same to the District Inspector of Schools. But in this case, the panel under reference was not submitted to the respondent No. 3 within the above time limit.
(2.) So far as the first ground is concerned, it is the settled principles of law that wide circulation of a vacancy in newspaper and other electronics media is a condition precedent for filling up of a post relating to public employment. Reference may be made to the decision of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., 1996 6 SCC 216 and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below: 6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. 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 new 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.
(3.) In view of the above, the first ground for rejection of the proposal for approval of the panel cannot be sustained in law.;