Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - (1.) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned panel dated October 16, 2017, prepared by the Selection Committee and approved by the Managing Committee of Raghabpur St. Paul's High School (hereinafter referred to as "concerned school"), Post Office Nepal Runj, District 24 Parganas (South), for the post of Assistant Teacher in English subject (Pass) with B. Ed. (hereinafter called the said post).
(2.) The chronological facts leading to this writ petition are as follows: a) A post of teacher for English subject (pass category) with B. Ed. had fallen vacant in Raghabpur St. Paul's High School. For the purpose of filling up the said post the Managing Committee of the said school invited applications by advertisement published in the "Asian Age" and "Ajjkal" newspaper on August 20, 2017. The aspiring candidates having requisite qualifications applied for the said post. 16 persons were present in the interview including the petitioner which was scheduled to be held on October 16, 2017. The Selection Committee prepared the panel on the basis of marks for educational qualification, class demonstration and interview/viva-voce. The Selection Committee fixed 35 marks for educational qualification, 15 marks for class demonstration and 10 marks for viva-voce out of 60 marks. b) The members of the Selection Committee after conducting the class demonstration and viva voce individually awarded marks for each of the above components and upon aggregation, the final panel was chosen by them and the same was handed over to the Managing Committee of the said school. The Managing Committee duly approved the said panel. c) The panel figured in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_68_LAWS(CAL)10_2018_1.html JUDGEMENT_68_LAWS(CAL)10_2018_1.html d) The Managing Committee of the said school issued appointment letter in favour of the 1st empanelled candidate namely Mr. Raj Kumar Mistry, the private respondent No. 6 herein. The petitioner has challenged the said selection process and the impugned panel dated October 16, 2017 in the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher of English in the concerned school on 16th October 2017 and in spite of receiving the highest marks in the academic qualifications was not selected. His main argument was that the concerned school had allotted more marks for the viva voce in complete disregard to the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v- State of Haryana & Ors., 1985 4 SCC 417 [Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and P.N. Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.] His arguments centred around the following issues: a) The viva-voce component being more than 12.2% the entire selection process was vitiated and was malafide and arbitrary as per the ratio of Ashok Kumar Yadav ; b) The larger bench judgment of Ashok Kumar Yadav prevails over the subsequent judgments of smaller benches of the Supreme Court; c) Unsuccessful candidates have a right to approach the court to challenge the selection procedure; d) Minority institutions are subject to writ jurisdiction within the framework of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.;