Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Accountant and Cashier of the college. According to the petitioner, he is senior to the respondent No. 7. The appointment to the posts of Accountant and Cashier has to be undertaken on the basis of seniority. The two posts are promotional in nature. The petitioner had participated for the selection for both the posts. He has been unfairly denied the promotion.
(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the panel for the selection process was not appropriately constituted. The first statute of the university has been relied upon in support of such contention. Reliance has also been placed on, 1988 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases page 562 (State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v/s. Dr Mohanjit Singh & Anr.) as well as : 2013 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases page 179 (State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v/s. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors.) in this regard.
(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the college authorities that, the petitioner had participated for two posts unconditionally. He has been unsuccessful. As an unsuccessful candidate he cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process. Reliance in this regard has been placed on : 2008 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 171 (Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v/s. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.) and : 2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 395 (K.H. Siraj v/s. High Court of Kerala & Ors.). The college authorities have also produced the records being the minutes of the Governing Body dealing with the appointment.;