Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2015, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 19832(W) of 2009 (Ramprosad Khan and Ors. vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors.) on the grounds that the writ petition was itself not maintainable without impleading the appellant Council as a party respondent as it was a necessary and proper party.
(2.) Sri Ratul Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant Council would argue that the Writ Court in the aforesaid writ petition committed an error in law and in fact in directing the Council to issue appointment letters in favour of the writ petitioners without impleading the Council as a party and also for the reason that there was no material before the Writ Court to hold that the writ petitioners/respondents were empanelled as successful candidates under the exempted category and were denied appointment. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding is bad in law as empanelled candidates were not at all successful candidates.
(3.) It is argued that the finding of the learned Single Judge in holding that 152 vacancies are still left and were not filled up, is not correct and there is no basis of such finding as total vacancies in the unreserved category of the selection process was vide notification no. R/RT/DPSC(N)/1/99 dated 29th December, 1999 were 446 and 282 vacancies meant for EC(UR) : 95 meant for EC(SC) : 26 meant for EC(ST) : 30 meant for EC(OBC) and 13 meant for EC(PM) and all the vacancies were duly filled up during the validity period of the panel and as such, the writ petitioners/respondents had no right to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in primary schools under the Council.;