- (1.) The challenge in the writ petition is the order dated May 5, 2015 passed by the District Project Officer, Paschim Banga Sarva Siksha Mission, Birbhum. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner referring to the order dated February 23, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 2508 (W) of 2010 that the District Project Officer was directed to consider and decide the fate of the panel. He has not done so. He has proceeded to look into the entitlement of the writ petitioner to get an appointment. It is, further, contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the order of the District Project Officer is in any event perverse. The writ petitioner was married on April 30, 2007. The advertisement initiating the selection process is dated September 13, 2007. With the marriage, she had shifted to her matrimonial home. The matrimonial home is within the jurisdiction for which the selection process is initiated. This fact has been overlooked. The date of change of address in the ration card is not material for such consideration.
(2.) The State authorities are represented before me. It is contended on behalf of the State that the date of change of address in the ration card has been taken into consideration by the District Project Officer. Moreover, subsequent to 2010 no further appointment is required to be made in view of the earlier decision of the State authorities. The private respondent no. 8 is also represented. It is submitted on behalf of the private respondent no. 8 that the order dated February 23, 2015 passed in W.P. 2508 (W) of 2010 was obtained without making her a party in the said writ petition. It is submitted that there was previous order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the private respondent no. 8. The respondent no. 8 got appointment in terms of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent no. 8 cannot be assailed. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties as also the materials made available on record.
(3.) The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition being W.P. 2508 (W) of 2010. In such writ petition, the order dated February 23, 2015 had been passed requiring the District Project Officer to consider and decide the fate of the panel. It appears from the impugned order that the District Project Officer purported to act in terms of the order dated February 23, 2015 passed in W.P. 2508 (W) of 2010. The District Project Officer, in my view, has not considered the fate of the panel in terms of the direction issued by the court. The District Project Officer has limited his enquiry as to the entitlement of the writ petitioner. Such is not the direction contained in the order dated February 23, 2015. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside.;