PRAHLAD MAJHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two writ petitions involve identical questions. Hence, I have heard the said writ petitions analoguously and I intend to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

(2.) At the outset I intend to set out the facts and circumstances of the said two writ petitions. Prahlad Kumar Maji : In this case the writ petitioner claimed to be a successful candidate in the interview held in the post of Group "D" staff in Banagram High School, Banagram, District : Birbhum. According to writ Petitioner, his name was appearing as a second candidate whereas the name of the Respondent No. 6 was appearing at the top of the panel. For the concerned post an interview was called by the school concerned upon receipt of the list of the sponsored candidates from the District Employment Exchange in accordance with the recruitment rules prevailing at that point of time. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 although not a sponsored candidate by the Employment Exchange was allowed to participate in the interview in terms of an order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 6 on December 9, 1998. Relying on the Special Bench decision in the case of Debasish Dutta, reported in (1998)2 Cal LT 398(HC) 1998, Volume II, Calcutta Law Journal, Page 2, writ petitioner contended that the name of the Respondent No. 6 should be removed from the panel and panel should be recasted accordingly. It was also contended by the writ petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 was a minor on the date when the school sought prior permission of the concerned authority to fill up the post in question. In support of such contention the writ petitioner relied on the case of Pintu Acharjya, reported in 1997 Volume 2, Calcutta Law Journal, Page 428. Prabhat Kumar Mondal : In this case, the writ petitioner also challenged the inclusion of Respondent No. 6 in the panel prepared for the post of Class-IV staff in Asadtolla Nivedita Kanya Bidyapith, Post Office : Asadtolla, District-Midnapore on the ground that the respondent No. 6 was not a sponsored candidate who allowed to participate in the interview pursuing to an order of Court. However, the question of minority was not involved in this case.

(3.) With regard to the first writ petition, I find that there is no subsistence to the contention that the Respondent No. 6 could not have been considered as he was a minor on the date when prior permission was obtained by the school concerned to fill up the vacancy. I feel that the case of Pintu Acharjya (supra) has no application in the instant case. The relevant date for consideration in this regard should be the date when the selection process started. Prior permission for filling up the vacant post was not the date when the selection process has actually started although prior permission was a relevant factor to start the selection process. The selection process starts, according to me, when the school authority notifies the same either by advertisement or by asking the concerned employment exchange to send names. As in this case on the date when the names were asked by the school authority the petitioner was a major one, hence the contention of the writ petitioner on the said score is not tenable and is rejected.