Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions are connected with one selection process that was initiated by the Secretary, Rashidabad G.P. XI V.E.C., Malda by his notice No. 255 (30) dated July 25, 2006. A copy of the notice is Annexure P2 at p. 21 to W.P. No. 25488 (W) of 2006.
(2.) BY the notice dated July 25, 2006 applications were invited for appointment of para teacher in Mankibari Primary School in Malda. In response to the notice both Husneara and Parvin applied. Husneara filed her case alleging that the respondents wrongfully decided to remove her name from the first position in the list of select candidates in which Parvin was in second position. Parvin initially filed a case alleging that the respondents were not approving the list of select candidates in which she occupied the first position. Then she took out W P. No. 26880 (W) of 2006 alleging that the respondents were not implementing the decision of the Circle Project Officer, Tulsihata Circle, Malda dated November 21, 2006 approving the list of select candidates and thus entitling her to the appointment. A copy of the order of the circle project officer dated November 21, 2006 is Annexure P5 at p.28, to her writ petition. In view of this writ petition, her previous writ petition was dismissed. The present position is that nobody has yet been appointed to the post. Allegations made by Husneara have not either been considered by any authority. Under the circumstances, it is to be seen whether the respondents are under an obligation to appoint Parvin according to order of the circle project officer dated November 21, 2006. Mr Maity, Counsel for the State, submits that according to the provisions of the scheme and instructions issued for execution thereof, the District Project Officer, Malda was the competent authority to approve the panel. He says that as will appear from the document at p.24 of W.P. No. 26880 (W) of 2006 the President of the Village Education Committee submitted the list of select candidates for approval to the district project officer and not to the circle project officer. It is not known under what authority the circle project officer made the order dated November 21, 2006 approving the list Mr Deb Burman, Counsel for Parvin, finds little to say in support of exercise of power by the circle project officer. He also agrees that the authority competent to approve the list was the district project officer. On this ground alone the order dated November 21, 2006 is not to be implemented. I think it is not to be implemented for another reason as well. Correctness of the allegations made by Husneara have not yet been examined by the district project officer. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, in my opinion, the district project officer ought to have examined them closely for ascertaining whether there was any element of truth in them. I am of the view that until an investigation was made into the allegations, the respondents could not give final decision regarding the question of approval to the list in which Parvin was shown to be No. 1. It is to be noted that Counsel for the parties have said that the entire matter requires a careful consideration by the district project officer. I think they are right. A fact finding inquiry has to be made for ascertaining whether the selection process was duly conducted by the selection committee. The authority competent for the purpose is the district project officer. In my opinion, it will be appropriate to remit the entire matter to him.
(3.) FOR these reasons, I dispose of both the writ petitions ordering as follows. The order of the circle project officer dated November 21, 2006 is hereby set aside. The District Project Officer, Malda is directed to examine the allegations made by Husneara for ascertaining whether there is any element of truth in them. In the process he shall make necessary inquiry, examine all records, give inspection of records and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. He shall give a reasoned decision regarding the correctness of the allegations. If he finds that the list submitted by the president of the committee is to be recast on the basis of the records of the selection process, then he will do so. If he finds that the allegations made by Husneara have no merits, then he shall take up the list submitted by the president for considering the question of approval. After giving decision regarding Husneara's allegations, the district project officer shall give appropriate decision regarding approval to the appropriate list for appointment The entire process the district project officer shall complete within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to him. The decision shall be communicated to all concerned without any delay. There shall be no order for costs.;