- (1.) THE subject matter of challenge is the order impugned passed by Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal, dated 14th March, 2014 wherein the concerned D.P.I., although approved the appointment of Typist -1, Typist -2, Lady Attendant -1 & Sweeper -1 (Part Time), refused to give approval of six appointments of six Laboratory Attendants including the petitioner in different subjects.
(2.) MR . Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that by a memo dated 9th February, 2009 the appropriate authority sanctioned six posts of Laboratory Attendants viz. Laboratory Attendant in the department of Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Computer and Geography. On that basis college authorities invited application by way of advertisement. Employment Exchange was also informed for sending names for such selection but Employment Exchange did not send names. Writ petitioner applied for the post of Laboratory Attendant in (Physics) and he passed through written test and thereafter in interview and was empanelled by the selection committee. Panel was prepared following due process and as such there is no illegality. The governing body of the college by its resolution dated 25th January, 2011 approved the panel. Resolution taken by Government Body reads as follows: - - "Atendum -2, Appointment of Gr. -D staff. Principal placed before the meeting the panels for appointment of Group -D staff in the posts of Lab. Attendants, Lady Attendant, Bearers, Peons, Guard and Mali prepared by the selection sub -committee in its meeting dated 15.01.2011 for appointment of non -teaching staff and it was perused and discussed in the meeting. It is resolved that the panel prepared as above be approved and that the Principal be authorized to issue appointment letters to the persons as below according to the panels, giving seven days of time from the date of receipt of the appointment letters and if any candidate fails to join within the stipulated time the persons next to panel be given appointment out of the panel recommended by the selection sub -committee. Name of the persons: - - "1. Sri Rajesh Paswan (SC) Lab Attendant -1st post. 2. Sri Debdulal Banerjee (Gen) Lab. Attendant -2nd post. 3. Sri Mintu Chakraborty (Gen) Lab. Attendant -3rd post. 4. Sri Som Nath Orao (ST) Lab. Attendant -4th post. 5. Sri Palash Roy (Gen) Lab. Attendant -5th Post. 6. Sri Pranab Chawdhury (Gen) Lab. Attendant -6th post. 7. Sri Rahul Chatterjee (Gen) - Bearer/Peon. 8. Abdur Rahaman (Minority) - Bearer. 9. Sri Sourav Sarkar (Gen) - Bearer. 10. Sri Debnjan Gunguli (Gen) - Peon. 11. Biplab Dey (Gen) - Bearer. 12. Sri Smarat Basu (Gen) - Bearer. 13. Smt. Sabrati Singh (SC) - Lady Attendant." Also resolved that the persons namely 1) Sri Biman Singh (ST) in the post of Guard (Mor), 2) Sri Soudip Bhattacharjee, (Gen) in the post of Lib. Bearer (Eve), 3) Sri Abhi Ghosh (OBC) in the post of Mali and 4) Sri Debasis Chatterjee (Gen) in the post of peon be appointed out the panel against the resultant vacancies due to retirement/death/promotion of Sri Ganesh Das, Guard (Mor). Late Benoy Mukherjee, Lib. Bearer (Eve), Sri Sachin Kr. Sarkar, Bearer and a creation of a new post of Mali as per staff pattern respectively. Principal be authorized to issue appointment letters to the above persons and their salaries be given from the college fund till regularization of their appointment by the Govt. of West Bengal in due course."
(3.) MR . Gupta summits petitioner's name was in the panel and in view of the resolution dated 25th January, 2011 petitioner was issued appointment letter on 27th January, 2011 by the Principal of Barasat College. Petitioner joined the post on 1st February, 2011 and he is continuing his service. Unfortunately the concerned authorities have not yet approved his appointment and no pay fixation was also made. Petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned inaction moved before this Hon'ble Court filing a writ petition W.P. No. 27240 (W) of 2013 and that writ petition was disposed of on 7th November, 2013 and the following order was passed: - - "Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant in the Barasat College, Barasat. He joined the said post on 1st February, 2011. His grievance is that in spite of being duly appointed has neither been approved nor his pay has been fixed by the appropriate authority. The college authority had already sent necessary documents to the respondent No. 3 but in spite of it produced no result. Mr. Gupta the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in his usual fairness has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act to the college and in reply thereto the respondent No. 3 had informed the college that the letter had made appointment in excess of the number of sanctioned posts. Be that as it may, at this stage, we are concerned with the appointments, which were made against the sanctioned posts. Mr. Gupta submits that the representation made by the petitioner to the respondents No. 3 on July 15, 2013 which has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure P5 has not been replied to by the respondent No. 3 nor has any step pursuant thereto been taken by any authority. In such view of it, instead of keeping the writ petition pending it is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 3 to dispose of this representation dated July 15, 2013 (Annexure P5 to the writ petition) within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of the order and to communicate the decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. The respondent No. 3 is further directed to divert the college to transmit all the necessary documents before any such decision in the matter is taken by the said authority. The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to annex a copy of this representation dated July 15, 2013 while communicating this order to the respondent No. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for any affidavits, the allegations made therein are deemed to have been denied. There shall, however, no order as to costs.";