TULSI ROY Vs. SRI KRISHANU ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three matters have been assigned to this Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of which the first one has been assigned as a consequence of reference by a Division Bench of this Court dated 17th March, 2008 passed in F.M.A. No.768 of 2007 and the other two matters have been referred to by another Division Bench before whom these two writ-applications were assigned on the request of two learned Single Judge of this Court because of importance of the question involved. The said Division Bench was, however, of the view that since the other one, namely, the case of Tulsi Roy, has already referred to a larger bench, these two writ- applications should also be heard along with the same. Consequently, these two writ-applications have also been assigned before us.

(2.) WE have heard all these three matters together as the points involved in all these three matters are substantially the same.

(3.) THE appellant, the second empanelled person in the panel, thus, preferred an appeal before the Division Bench against the order allowing the writ-application of the respondent No. 1 with the leave to prefer an appeal and the learned Division Bench after taking into consideration various decisions was of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be set aside and the writ-application should be dismissed. However, in view of the fact that there were conflicting views on the subject and in the case of Uttam Kumar Matty v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2007)4 CHN page 499, a Division Bench of this Court having directed that an advertisement should be published before making any such selection, and at the same time, THEir Lordships having some doubts as to whether the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions as regards the necessity of advertisement for recruitment applies to the Government sponsored schools, THEir Lordships referred the matter for a decision by a Larger Bench.