- (1.) Let the affidavit of service be kept on record. This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing an order passed by the respondent No. 3 under his memo dated September 18, 2013. By virtue of the impugned order the respondent No. 3 allowed the prayer of the petitioner school partially in respect of filling up of one post of Librarian in accordance with law prevailing at the time of filing the application by the school.
(2.) According to the petitioner school an application dated July 17, 2007 was filed before the respondent No. 3 for consideration of the need to sanction 6 posts of non teaching staffs (2 clerks, 1 Group D, 1 Librarian, and 2 Laboratory Assistants). Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3 the petitioner school filed and application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Kakdwip Shisu Shikshayatan High School (H.S.) & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No. 6117(W) of 2013). The above writ application was disposed of on March 06, 2013 with a direction upon the respondent No. 3 to take a decision in respect of the above application of the petitioner school dated July 17, 2007 within the period mentioned herein. In compliance of the above order the impugned order was passed.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstance of this case I find that the application of the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 3 in such a way which cannot be accepted by a man of ordinary prudent. I am surprised to see that the prayer was made for sanctioning 6 posts of non-teaching staffs and to take consequential steps for filling up those posts but taking into consideration the number of person of non-teaching staff of the school the respondent No. 3 granted prior permission to the petitioner-school to fill up one post of Librarian. No reason is assigned. The prayer for sanction additional vacancies was not considered at all by the respondent No. 3. The above conduct of the respondent No. 3 is disapproved in course of judicial review of such action in view of the settled principles of law as decided in the case of State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh etc., 1989 AIR(SC) 997and the relevant portions of the above decision are set out below: "28........................................... ............................................................. When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice. ............................................... .............................................................";