ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner having all requisite qualifications in response to a notice issued by the Managing Committee of Katalda Maroasole Jatindra Nath Srithi Madhyamik Siksha Kendra, inviting application from the suitable candidates for the post of Sikkha Sampasarak in Englilsh, offered his candidature. It is his further case that the writ petitioner and others appeared before the Interview Board and after interview, a panel of two candidates were prepared, in which the private respondent no.9 was the topper. According to him, the selection process has been completely vitiated because of the fact the respondent no.9 was one of the member of the committee which selected the members of the selection committee. It is then contended that during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent authority illegally and unauthorisedly issued appointment letter in favour of the respondent no.9 and thereafter approved his appointment. He further contended that before filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioner made representation to the concerned B.D.O. against the Managing Committee of the school pointing the aforesaid irregularities but his such representation never received any attention of him.
(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.9 submitted that this application has become infructuous because already the respondent no.9 has been appointed in the said post and his appointment have been approved by the concerned authority. He then pointed out the complaint made by the writ petitioner to the B.D.O. is of no consequences since the appropriate authority was the Nodal Officer/Project Officer. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that once the writ petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee, he cannot now challenge the selection process. Therefore, this writ application is to be dismissed.
(3.) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties. There is no dispute that an unsuccessful candidate after appearing in the interview cannot challenge the selection process on the ground of irregularities. However, this is a case where the challenge was on the ground that the Selection Committee was constituted by another committee in which the respondent no.9 the successful candidate, was one of the member.;