Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) Challenge in this writ petition is thrown to the order of the District Magistrate, Howrah/the respondent No.2 to this petition dated the 8th of May, 2015 being Memo No. 527/HDP. The DM/the respondent No.2 by the impugned order, inter alia, concluded that since the name of the writ petitioner, Subrata Kanrar (henceforth referred to as only SK) was not sponsored by the local Employment Exchange (for short EE), which was a mandatory requirement at the time of the selection for the post of Panchayat Karmee (for short PK) in the year 2000, SK cannot be considered as an eligible candidate.
(2.) The second conclusion drawn by the DM, Howrah in his said impugned order dated 8th May, 2015 is that SK could not produce proper documents before the then Block Level Selection Committee (for short BLSC).
(3.) At the threshold of the present discussion, it would be relevant to trace the long and chequered history of this lis. For the purpose of avoiding prolixity it would suffice at this juncture to reproduce the contents of the order dated 1st June, 2015 in CAN 3871 of 2015 arising out of MAT 591 of 2015 of the Hon'ble Division Bench (for short the DB). The said order of 1st June, 2015, in the view of this Court, quite encapsulates the essential facts on which SK now stands in his attempt to set aside the ultimate order dated 8th May, 2015 and claim his appointment. The order dated 1st June, 2015 of the Hon'ble DB reads as follows:- "The appellant/alleged contemnor has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20th March, 2015 passed by the learned single Judge in a contempt proceeding whereby the learned Judge set aside the order passed by the alleged contemnor on 10th June, 2014 and directed him to pass fresh order after considering the observations of the Court in the order dated 14th February, 2014 within a specified time. It appears that by order dated 14th February, 2014, the learned single Judge had directed the appellant to issue suitable directions based on the order dated 8th May, 2011 passed in W.P. 18652(W) of 2000 read with order dated 8th January, 2013 passed in W.P. 2671(W) of 2012. The factual matrix giving rise to the case is to the effect that the writ petitioner appears to have been appointed to the post of 'Panchayat Karmee' in the concerned Panchayat. It is the contention of the appellant that the writ petitioner was not sponsored by the employment exchange and accordingly his appointment cannot be said to be in terms of the law prevalent at the relevant point of time. Be that as it may, a challenge was thrown to his appointment by an unsuccessful candidate in W.P. 18652(W) of 2000 wherein the learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 22nd August, 2003 quashed his appointment and directed appointment of the unsuccessful candidate (the second empanelled candidate) to be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner filed an application for review of the said order which stood allowed by order dated 29th April, 2011 whereby the learned single Judge recalled the order dated 22nd August, 2003 so far it relates to the quashing of the appointment of the petitioner. However, the appointment of the second empanelled candidate was left undisturbed. Subsequently by order dated 18th May, 2011, the learned single Judge clarified the earlier order by directing that the writ petitioner who was a private respondent in the earlier writ petition would be at liberty to make representation before the Authority concerned namely, the District Level Selection Committee who shall consider the case of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. It was further clarified that the Authorities would be at liberty to consider all issues raised before them which had not been considered in the writ petition. Subsequent to such direction the respondents-Authorities took a decision not to allow the representation of the writ petitioner on the ground that he had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned which was the law prevalent at the material point of time. Such order was assailed by the writ petitioner in W.P. 2671(W) of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 8th January, 2013 whereby the matter was remitted before the appellant for consideration in the light of the above decisions. Pursuant thereto another decision was taken by the appellant/contemnor on 18th January, 2013. Such decision was alleged to be contumacious of the earlier order dated 8th January, 2013 in W.P. 2671(W) of 2012 and the instant contempt proceeding was initiated. In the said contempt proceeding, the impugned order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us an order passed by the appellant on 18th May, 2015 holding that the appointment of the wit petitioner being contrary to law prevalent at the time of his appointment his representation could not be considered. The relevant law in the matter has already been enclosed in the said affidavit. Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that there was a direction upon the appellant to consider the case in favour of his client. Accordingly, there was no scope for the appellant to refuse the representation of the writ petitioner. We are unable to accept such submission. The tenor of the orders passed by this Court on earlier occasions does not create any impression that it was imperative mandate on the respondent Authorities to appoint the writ petitioner. On the contrary in the order dated 18th May, 2011 in W.P. 18652(W) of 2000 the learned single Judge had given liberty to the Authorities to consider all issues applicable in the matter which may not have been agitated in the writ petition. Accordingly, such order has not been set aside and in fact was reiterated in the subsequent order passed by this Court on 8th January, 2013. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of the writ petitioner that there was imperative mandate on the appellant to appoint him in the aforesaid post. The order has been passed by appellant. Accordingly, we do not find there is any scope for continuation of the contempt proceeding. The writ petitioner, if aggrieved, by the said order is at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law in a separate proceeding inasmuch as the same constitutes independent cause of action. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid liberty granted to the writ petitioner. We make it clear that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner was lawfully appointed at the initial stage is kept open to be decided in the said proceeding. The application being CAN 3871 of 2015 is also disposed of.";