- (1.) The writ petition has been moved praying for a direction upon the respondents to award statutory marks to the petitioner in consonance with his academic qualifications and, thereafter, if total marks secured by the petitioner is more than the marks obtained by the candidate last appointed, then the petitioner should be appointed immediately with retrospective effect.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the allegations made in the writ petition are unfounded or baseless since it has not been affirmed in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (for short "the Rules"). Further, according to him, the writ petition should be dismissed, on the ground of laches since the writ petition has been moved in July, 2004 challenging a purported action by the respondents which took place during June, 2000. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Sanyal on the following judgments in support of his contentions :- 1. Barium Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. v. Company Law Board & Ors., reported in AIR 1967 SC 295 2 A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1970 SC 652 3 Roshan Lal & Ors. v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 597 4 S. S. Moghe & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1495 5 Calcutta Corporation Teachers Association & Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors., reported in (1993)2 Cal HN 444
(3.) Mr. P. S. Deb Barman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that substantive right which has accrued to the petitioner due to a wrong calculation of marks by the respondents and which is patent cannot be taken away by any infraction of the Rules. However, it was admitted that the Rules are mandatory in nature. Mr. Deb Barman relied on certain paragraphs of the following judgements in support of his contentions. They are as under:- 1. In re : The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, reported in AIR 1958 SC 956 (paragraphs 29 and 31) 2 Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara, reported in AIR 1961 SC 964 (paragraphs 15 and 16) 3 Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan & Anr., reported in AIR 1959 SC 149 (paragraph 73) 4 Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR (1994)1 SCC 44 (paragraph 5) 5 Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Anr., reported in (1999)6 SCC 49 6. Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai & Ors., reported in (2002)6 SCC 16 (paragraph 4) 7. Daryao & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457 (paragraphs 7, 9 and 10);