SMT. MINA MONDAL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2014-2-126
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 07,2014

Mina Mondal Appellant
VERSUS
The State of West Bengal and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) IT is the grievance of the writ petitioner that having come to learn that a post of Sahayika is going to be filled up in Sabdalpur Sishu Siksha Kendra having all requisite qualification, she offered her candidature for the said post. However, out of sheer mala fide she was not called in the interview and one Purnima Sarkar was called and selected. Thereafter when the Managing Committee of the school forwarded her selection for approval to the Mission Director, Sarba Siksha Mission -respondent no. 2, the writ petitioner made a representation bringing to his notice various gross irregularities committed during the selection process. The respondent no. 2 having been fully satisfied declined to grant any sanction to the said appointment. Since then no steps have been taken for filling up of the post of Sahayika in the said school by its Managing Committee and when the petitioner is most eligible for the said post, the Managing Committee be directed to initiate process for filling up of the vacancy.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and considered their respective submissions. No person has any vested right of appointment against any particular post even though such person fulfills all eligibility criteria. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner that the respondent authorities be directed to take steps for filling up the post of sahayika in Sabdalpur Sishu Siksha Kendra considering his candidature cannot be considered by this court in exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
(3.) HOWEVER , this is a case where a post of sahayika in a Sishu Siksha Kendra, where the elementary education is imparted to the children upto the age of 9 years, has been kept vacant for years together and for not less than 5 years, which is of course fatal to the proper education and disadvantages to the child education and thus infringed the right to education of a child, not above the age of 14 years guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution as also the statutory provisions enshrined in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.