- (1.) By this judgment we propose to dispose of appeals namely G.A. No. 3715 of 2006, APO No. 355 of 2006, W.P. No. 952 of 2006 and C.A.N. No. 6205 of 2007, M.A.T. No. 2440 of 2007, W.P. No. 23208 (W) of 2006, as both the appeals arise out of the same transaction and have been filed by the same appellant against the same selected candidate.
(2.) The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 952 of 2006 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 8 to recall, rescind, withdraw, cancel and/or set aside the recommendations in favour of respondent No. 8 for appointment as distributor of food grains at Neturia, Purulia. It was pleaded by the appellant that an advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued by the respondent No. 6, District Controller, (Food & Supplies) (hereinafter referred to as DCF&S), inviting applications for appointment of distributor at Neturia. The petitioner had submitted the necessary applications for being considered for distributionship. Inquiry was held with regard to the suitability of the appellant on 16th of September, 17th of September and 18th of September, 2005 by the Sub-Divisional Control (Food & Supply) (hereinafter referred to as SCF&S), respondent No. 7, Raghunathpur. Respondent No. 8 had submitted similar application which had also been considered. In all, ten applicants were considered. Ultimately, a consolidated statement of facts was prepared based on the report of the inquiry into the applications. The Enquiry Officer recommended for rejection of seven applications of candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. The Enquiry Officer further recommended that appellant s candidature be considered as preference No. 1 and that of respondent No. 8 be considered as preference No. 3. The details given in the consolidated statement with regard to the petitioner and respondent No. 8 are as under: JUDGEMENT_77_LAWS(CAL)12_2007.html
(3.) This consolidated statement was forwarded by SCF&S to DCF&S in the form of an Inquiry Report on 28.11.2005. On consideration of the Inquiry Report DCF&S, recorded its own his assessment of the suitability of the different candidates, as follows: JUDGEMENT_77_LAWS(CAL)12_2007(1).html;