Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The appointment of the private respondent as an Assistant Teacher of a Christian Minority Educational Institution is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon a list of dates. Referring to the list of dates, he submits that, advertisement to the post of an Assistant Teacher, English Language Group in Schedule Caste category was published on July 6, 2006. Such advertisement required applications to be submitted within fifteen days. The petitioner applied to such post on July 15, 2006. The petitioner received a duplicate copy of the call letter on July 26, 2006. The petitioner participated in the interview on July 28, 2006. Apart from the petitioner, two other candidates participated in the interview. He refers to the mark sheet prepared at the interview and submits that, the petitioner stood first therein. The private respondent was the third candidate in the order of merit. He submits that, a panel was prepared by the school authorities and submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The petitioner was arranged as the first empanelled candidate with the private respondent as the last one in the panel prepared by the school. He refers to the writing dated October 10, 2006 of the District Inspector of Schools. He submits that, there are two versions of such writing. He refers to the writing dated October 10, 2006, as appearing in the affidavit-inopposition filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools as well as a copy of such writing, as obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He submits that, there are material discrepancies between the two writings. Therefore, the writing dated October 10, 2006 cannot be taken as sacrosanct. According to him, the private respondent and the school authorities including the District Inspector of Schools entered into a conspiracy to deny the appointment to the petitioner. The writing dated October 10, 2006 is a product of such conspiracy. Acting in terms of such conspiracy, the school authorities and the District Inspector of Schools went out of their ways and granted appointment to the private respondent. He refers to the interim order dated July 8, 2008 passed in the writ petition and submits that, the appointment of the private respondent is subject to the result of the present writ petition. He relies upon (Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 1976 1 SCC 311) and submits that, once the call letter was received by the petitioner and the petitioner having participated in the selection process, it is not open for the authorities to contend that, the application of the petitioner was belated. He relies upon (Asok Kumar Malik v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2013 1 CalLJ 70 (Cal)) and submits that, similar rules as that governing the appointment procedure of a Christian Minority School was construed to mean that, the requirement to apply by way of a registered is procedural and application for appointment cannot be turned down merely on such plea. He relies upon (Som Raj & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1990 2 SCC 653) in support of the contention that, where there is an element of the discretion involved, such discretion has to be exercised appropriately and must be confined within clearly defined limits. He submits that, the appointment granted in favour of the private respondent be quashed and the petitioner be granted the appointment.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that, the advertisement dated July 6, 2006 prescribed a period of fifteen days for the purpose of submitting applications. The petitioner did not submit the application within time. He refers to the order of the Court requiring production of the original records by the school authorities. He draws the attention of the Court to the original records, as produced by the school authorities, and submits that, the application of the petitioner is dated July 25, 2006. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of making an application beyond the time period prescribed. The District Inspector of Schools correctly pointed out such infirmity in its report dated April 3, 2007. The petitioner did not challenge such report of the District Inspector of Schools. He refers to the prayer made in the writ petition. Therefore, he submits that, there is no infirmity in the appointment granted in favour of the private respondent requiring any interference by the Writ Court. He relies upon (Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority v. S. Vasudeva & Ors., 2000 2 SCC 439) and submits that, since the initial writing of the District Inspector of Schools, which disqualified the petitioner is not under challenge, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.;