ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The Court : Affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the State and affidavit-in-reply filed in Court be kept on record.
(2.) The petitioner participated in the 2002 Regional Level Selection Test (AT) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers. A panel was prepared by the School Service Commission and published on 7th November, 2003. The petitioner was number one in the panel in the Schedule Tribe category. However, since for a long time, he was not given appointment, he approached this Court by filing WP 19157 (w) of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by a judgment and order dated 7th June, 2016, the operative portion whereof reads as follows: "This Court is of the opinion that there is no explanation as to why the petitioner was deprived of his appointment. The purport of the statements made in the affidavit filed by the District Inspector is not that there were no vacancies. The petitioner being the first empanelled candidate and the fact of vacancy existing not disputed, the petitioner did have a right to be appointed. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purba Medinipur is added as a party. Learned advocate for the petitioner is given liberty to amend the cause title in Court. The added respondent will upon rceipt of copies of the writ petition as well as this order consider the claim for appointment of the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks therefrom. In the event the said respondent requires a hearing the petitioner or the Commission or both might be requested to render assistance. The decision taken must be informed to the petitioner in the time indicated or soon thereafter." Pursuant to the said order as corrected by the order dated 15th June, 2016, the D. I. Of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur issued an office memorandum dated 29th August, 2016 wherein he has observed inter alia as follows: "The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purba Medinipur is the authority only for approval of appointment of teaching/non-teaching staff so appointed by the school/madrasah authority upon due recommendation of the Commission. Therefore, without any recommendation of the Commission and without any appointment letter issued by the school/madrasah authority the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur has nothing to do regarding the appointment as well as approval of the appointment of the petitioner. From the above observations I am in the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as he prayed for." Being aggrieved by the said office memorandum, the petitioner is before this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the first empanelled candidate in the Schedule Tribe category. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel for the state submitted that the estimated/projected vacancy for the subject of history was shown to be one in number but actually no vacancy arose during the lifetime of the panel in question. The same is the stand of the state in the affidavit-in-opposition filed. Mr. Arefin, learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the submission made by Mr. Bandopadhyay and submits that since he was admittedly the first empanelled candidate and since the projected vacancy in the post that the petitioner applied for was shown to be one, the state cannot contend that no vacancy arose. Mr. Arefin submits that the petitioner has been suffering for a long time since 2002 and some justice should be done by directing the respondents to give him appointment in an appropriate post in either a school or a madrasah. Dr. Patra, appearing for the School Service Commission submits that the Commission has no further role to play. The life of the panel in question has long expired. Further in so far as Madrashas are concerned, giving appointment is presently within the exclusive domain of the Madrasha Service Commission. The School Service Commission has no role to play. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the judgement and order dated 7th June, 2016 passed in WP 19157 (w) of 2005, I think ends of justice would be served if I pass the following order. ;