PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The application for vacating the interim order dated August 9, 2017 was taken up for hearing in the presence of the parties yesterday. Instead of considering only the application for vacating the interim order, which has been registered as CAN 9101 of 2016, we proposed to decide the appeal itself. By consent of the parties, we treated the appeal as on the day's list and took it up for hearing. For paucity of time delivery of the judgment could not commence and the appeal was directed to be listed today "For Orders".
(2.) This appeal is from an order passed by the learned Single Judge on September 29, 2015 in W.P. No. 15022 (W) of 2012, by which it was allowed. The writ petition was filed by the Managing Committee of a high school, against an order dated April 5, 2012 passed by the District Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Mission, Dakshin Dinajpur, by which the panel prepared by the writ petitioner was rejected and not approved. It is a different matter, that the learned Single Judge mistook the writ petition as having been filed by a candidate whose candidature had not been approved, as appears from the first paragraph of the impugned judgment, instead of appreciating the fact that it was a writ petition filed by the Managing Committee of the school whose Secretary at the relevant point of time was also the father of the candidate.
(3.) This appeal raises an interesting question as to the effect of a process of employment under the "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, where the Secretary of a Managing Committee himself sits in the committee when his daughter's candidature for the post of an additional para teacher is approved. However, before we deal with that question, a few facts are to be noted, for the proper adjudication of the appeal.;