ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) In this application the applicant has prayed for being added as a party respondent to the writ petition being WP No. 17117(W) of 2006. The factual background in which the applicant has filed the present application are stated below:- The applicant appeared in an interview held by the Selection Committee of Badamail Laxmi Pratap High School, Post Office- Kamarpara, District- Dakshin Dinajpur (hereinafter referred to as "the said school') for the post of peon(class IV staff). According to the applicant, the said interview for the post of peon of the school was held after the Managing Committee obtained necessary approval from the concerned District Inspector of Schools to fill up the post of peon of the said school after the same fell vacant due to the retirement of the person who was serving as a peon. He further alleged that after the said interview when the Selection Committee prepared the panel of the successful candidates, his name was placed in the first position and in spite of the fact that the Administrator of the said school had forwarded the said panel to the District Inspector of Schools for his decision, the latter sat tight over the matter without taking any decision for approval of the panel. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the District Inspector of Schools the applicant filed a writ petition being WP No. 17843(W) of 1999, before this Court praying for, a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools to accord approval of the said panel prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of the said interview held on September 4,1999 for the post of peon.
(2.) By an order dated May 16,2001 a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the appointment of the Administrator who approved and forwarded the panel to the District Inspector of Schools was already quashed by this Court on September 03,1999 in a writ petition, being WP No. 530 of 1999 and as such, he had no authority to approve or forward the panel to the District Inspector of Schools. Thus, by the said order dated May 16,2001 the learned Single Judge held that the said panel prepared on September 4,1999 was illegal and void ab initio and dismissed the writ petition filed by the applicant. According to the applicant, although his writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, but in the said order dated May 16,2001 it was made clear that the appropriate authority will be at liberty to hold a fresh interview for the post of peon in accordance with law, where he himself along with other eligible sponsored candidates should be given an opportunity to appear.
(3.) The applicant belatedly challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge by preferring an appeal before the Division Bench. By an order dated August 5,2004 the Division Bench of this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Division Bench, however, found no merit in the appeal and disposed of the said appeal with an observation that there should be nothing to prevent the applicant from pressing his relief before the Trial Court, if he so advised in view of the order recorded by the Trial Court.;