ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that in response to an advertisement published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for conducting 8th Regional Level Selection Test for filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in Physical Education (Pass), the writ petitioner who possessed all the requisite qualifications offered his candidature. However, when the merit list was published, his name was not found place and he enquired at the office of the concerned respondent and he was allegedly verbally told that since his qualification of training is not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education his case was not considered. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred the Annexure P -3 and submitted that his qualification is duly recognized in terms of the N.C.T.E. norms.
(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that it was not known to anybody as to why the petitioner's candidature was not considered and whatever have been submitted from the side of the writ petitioner is based on mere assumption. He further submitted that no order can be passed by directing the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner without knowing the reason why his candidature was not considered. He further submitted the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent authorities to disclose the reason why his candidature is not considered and for that he has adequate and efficacious remedy under the Right to Information Act and, therefore, no order passed in this regard. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner draws the attention of this court to the affidavit -in -opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.3,4 and 5. It may be noted the original copy of the opposition was not found with the records and the counsel of the writ petitioner handed over to this court the copy of the same which was served on him. It may further be noted the learned counsel for the State has not raised any objection against the same. He then pointed out from paragraph 7 of the said affidavit -in -opposition it was categorically stated that the Baliapal College of Physical Education from where the petitioner completed B.P.Ed. course during the period 1996 -97 the said course was not recognized by N.C.T.E. and recognition was granted from academic sessions 2002 -2003 and then attention of this court was drawn to annexure P -3 to this application and submitted the necessary permission was accorded to the Baliapal College of Physical Education to continue with B.P.Ed. course, therefore, the contention of the respondent authority as stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit -in -opposition is completely against the materials on record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for State contended that the annexure P -3 cannot be considered as granting of recognition and that was merely a permission to continue with the course.;