Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed in October, 2004. In the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the West Bengal Central School Service Commission published an advertisement in newspaper for conducting Regional Level Selection Test, 2002 to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science reserved for male candidates. The petitioner participated in the written test held on March 16, 2003 and thereafter he was selected for the personality test. On November 07, 2003 the final selection list/panel was prepared. The petitioner was empanelled as the second candidate in the final selection list/panel, but the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the West Bengal School Service Commission. Thus, in short the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that although his name appeared as the second successful candidate in the selection list/panel dated November 07, 2003 and there were two available vacancies, the West Bengal School Service Commission, Northern Region, wrongfully failed to recommend his name for being appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in the concerned school in the District of Malda.
(2.) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed this writ petition in October, 2004 praying, for, inter alia, a writ of mandamus against the respondent No. 4, School Service Commission to recommend his name in the available vacancy for the post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in any school in the District of Malda and commanding the West Bengal School Service Commission not to, publish any advertisement or prepare any panel for the subject Political Science (Hons./PG) for which the petitioner have been selected. He also prayed for a direction, against the respondent School Service Commission, not to cancel the said panel containing his name as the second successful candidate. As stated above, the writ petition was filed in October, 2004. The writ petitioner was unsuccessful to obtain any ad -interim order either for extending the life of the aforesaid panel or a direction directing the respondent No. 4 to keep one post of Assistant Teacher in Political Science in the Northern Region vacant for him till the disposal of the writ petition. No affidavit of service has been filed to substantiate that the writ petition was at all served upon any of the six state respondents against whom, the reliefs were claimed in the writ petition. On November 01, 2007 a direction was passed by Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. requiring the petitioner to serve copy of the writ petition upon the respondent No. 4 School Service Commission. No affidavit of service has been filed to substantiate that the direction contained in the said order dated November 01, 2007 has been complied with. In these circumstances, there was no scope for any of the state respondents to contest the writ petition or to file in affidavit dealing with the allegations made in the writ petition. From the affidavit affirmed by the petitioner in the writ petition it is evident that in October, 2004 he was 46 years old and as such presently he is 56 years old. The writ petition has been kept pending for all these ten years without any effective any step being taken for hearing the writ petition. For some time, the writ petition was appearing in the Warning List under the heading "Unattended Old Writ Matters". On February 05, 2015 when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, Mr. S.S. Mondal appeared for the writ petitioner, prayed for a day's accommodation and the same was granted. Thus, the writ petition was taken up for hearing on February 06, 2015 when Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner and argued the matter.
(3.) MR . Bari, the learned advocate representing the writ petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj reported in : (2000) 3 SCC 699 and relied on paragraph 10 of the said decision where the Supreme Court allowed the claim of the writ petitioner in the said case for appointment, in spite of the validity period of the panel for one year had expired during the pendency of the writ petition. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Bari submitted that in the instant case though there is a gap of more than ten years from the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of hearing of the writ petition but, since the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of finalization of the select list/panel, the petitioner is entitled to obtain relief for appointment to post of Assistant Teacher as stated above on the basis of the said select list/panel prepared in November, 2003.;