- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 13th February, 2013 passed by brother Dr. Sambuddha Chakraborti, J. by which the writ petition was dismissed. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:-- There was a vacancy for a para-teacher in Geography in the Chaknarayanbati Kumarendranath Smriti Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. Advertisements were published for filling up that vacancy inviting application. No response was initially received. In the circumstances advertisements were resorted to for the second time. In response thereto two candidates applied namely the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 9. The writ petitioner is a graduate from the Calcutta University. The respondent No. 9 is a graduate from the Vidyasagar University. Both of them had Geography as their combination subject at the degree course level. The writ petitioner had secured 50% marks in Geography whereas the respondent No. 9 had secured 48% marks in Geography. Both of them participated in the selection process. The respondent No. 9 was selected. The writ petitioner raised his objection with regard to such selection and presented the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that in order to defeat the candidature of the writ petitioner the authorities had resorted to oral interview which was not warranted by the selection procedure. The learned trial Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner was not entitled to raise the question after he had participated in the selection process.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order the writ petitioner has come up in appeal.
(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5 drew our attention to annexure 'R-4' to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Shri Ashok Kumar Sahoo on behalf of the respondents No. 4 & 5 in order to show that at the oral interview the writ petitioner got only 4 marks out of 10, whereas the respondent No. 9 secured 8 marks out of 10. He submitted that on the basis of performance at the oral interview the respondent No. 9 was selected.;