Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the intimation dated 11th November, 2006 issued by the authorities of Visva Bharati intimating that the post of Assistant Director (Adult & Continuing Education & Extension) would be readvertised as the selected candidate did not join the post.
(2.) The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement, being Advertisement No. 1/2003 issued by the authorities of the Visva Bharati, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Director (Adult & Continuing Education & Extension) reserved for scheduled caste, the petitioner a member of the Scheduled Caste Community and an assistant teacher, had applied for the post. According to him, as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria, on 11th June, 2003 he was called for the interview. Thereafter, as the results were not published, the petitioner brought it to the notice of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, Backward Classes and Minorities Association (for short 'the Association'). The Association took up the cause of the petitioner. On 28th August, 2005 a representation was furnished to the Vice-Chancellor, Visva Bharati, respondent No.2 requesting him to intimate why the post was yet to be filled up. In response, by a memo dated 10th September, 2005 the Deputy Registrar of the Visva Bharati, the respondent No.4, intimated the Secretary of the Association that as clarifications were awaited from the University Grants Commission, the appointment letter could not be issued. Subsequently as the first empanelled candidate did not join and no steps were taken to appoint the next candidate on the panel, on 18th September, 2006 the Working President of the Association issued a representation to the respondent No.2 highlighting the fact. In reply the respondent No.4 intimated the President of the Association that as only one person was empanelled for the said post by the Selection Committee and as the selected candidate did not join, the post would be read vertised. Since the selection process was conducted in an allegedly clandestine manner, as results were not disclosed and no reasons were forthcoming as to why the second person on the panel was not appointed when the first person had refused to join, the petitioner on 2nd March, 2007 made a representation and raised certain queries before the Public Information Officer, Visva Bharati under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). On 9th April, 2007 the Central Information Officer intimated that in the interview no marks were awarded and considering all aspects one recommendation was made by the selection committee and decision was taken to em panel only one candidate. Being aggrieved, on 4th May, 2007 an appeal under section 19(1) of the Act was filed. Thereafter, on 20th May, 2007 the Association by a letter to the respondent No.2 requested not to readvertise and to consider be candidature of the candidates already interviewed. However, in the month of May, 2007, the respondent No.2 published an advertisement seeking applications for different posts including the post of Assistant Director (Adult and Continuing Education and Extension). Being aggrieved by the publication of such advertisement this writ petition was filed.
(3.) The matter was moved on 7th August, 2007,when after hearing the learned advocates for the parties directions were issued for filing of affidavits and an interim order was passed directing the Visva Bharati not to issue any interview letter in respect of the post of Assistant Director without the leave of the Court. Affidavits have since been exchanged and are on record.;