Decided on January 04,1996

Manjur Rahman Mondal Appellant
Sibnath Ghosh Respondents


S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)With the consent of the parties both the application for stay as also the main appeal were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.)The admitted fact of the matter is as; follows:
A vacancy having arisen in Sandeshkhali Radharani High School (hereinafter referred to for the sake of bravery as the 'said School'). A prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) was obtained, pursuant whereto the employment Exchange was notified, which in turn sponsored the name of the writ -Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 as also the intervener -Appellant herein. Admittedly, the writ Petitioner at the relevant time was aged 36 years. On an application filed by the Appellant, the Employment Officer cancelled his order sponsoring the name of the writ Petitioner. The instant writ application was thereafter filed, whereupon Altamas Kabir, J. by an order dated November 17, 1994, upon taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 4(g) of the Recruitment Rules of the Secondary Rules, directed the concerned authorities of the school to allow the writ Petitioner to appear at the interview. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee. The Appellant also appeared before the Selection Committee. A panel was prepared wherein the name of the writ Petitioner figured at serial No. 1, whereas the name of the Appellant figured at serial No. 2. The Appellant thereafter filed an application by impleading himself as a party in the writ application. The said application was allowed. S.K. Sen J. by reason of the impugned order dated September 4, 1995 allowed the said writ application directing the concerned school authorities to send the panel to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) North 24 -Parganas' and the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) was directed to approve the same unless there is any specific bar in law. Such approval, it was further directed, will be given by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) within four weeks from date. It was, however, made clear that age bar will not stand in the way for giving appointment to the Petitioner. With the aforementioned directions, the writ application was disposed of without any order as to costs.

(3.)Mr. Yasin Ali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned Counsel submits that the Rules framed by the Director of Schools Education being statutory in nature, the writ Petitioner -Respondent No. 1 could not have been appointed as an assistant teacher. The learned Counsel contends that the Employment Exchange Officer is bound by the terms of the said Rules and unless in the request sent to him the school authorities it was clearly stated asking him to sponsor the name of such candidates who had also crossed the age bar, the said authorities could not have sponsored the name of the writ Petitioner at all. It was also urged that in any event, the said authority having cancelled the order sponsoring the name of the writ Petitioner, his candidature could not have been considered by the Selection Committee nor any such direction could have been issued by this Court and consequently, the purported approval granted to the appointment of the writ Petitioner upon relaxation of his age, must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, the Appellant should be directed to be appointed as assistant teacher.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.