MAHBOOBUR RAHMAN Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was Issued on a Writ petition. This Rule could not have been issued but for the unreasonable conduct on the part of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal,

(2.) Petitioner Is a member of the West Bengal Junior Educational Service and is the lecturer of Arabic at the Calcutta Madrasa. He is an examiner of Arabic in the M. A. Examinations of the University of Calcutta. On October 25. 19G8, the respondent Commission, invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of the Principal, Calcutta Madrasa, a cadre post in the West Bengal General Educational Service. In the advertisement It was set out that one of the essential Qualifications is a first class master's degree or a doctorate degree with first class honours or second class master's degree of an Indian University in Arabic or equivalent. The petitioner does not possess any master's degree from any Indian University but he claims that he obtained the higher diploma of the faculty of Theology from the Ajahar University. Cairo which is equivalent to the requisite First Class M. A. degree of an Indian University. The petitioner applied to the respondent in answer to the aforesaid advertisement inviting candidates. His application was filed on November 18, 1968 with necessary requisites. By a memo dated March 17, 1969 the peti-tioner was called to appear for an interview before the respondent on April 7, 1969. But by a further memo dated April 2, 1969 such interview was postponed until further communication in the matter. Unfortunately petitioner got no further communication but he came to know that fresh interview letters for the said post were being issued in favour of other candidates. Thereupon on August, 6. 1969 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent requesting the respondent to allow him to appear at the postponed interview which was fixed on August 11, 1969. The respondent gave no reply to this representation but the interview for the other candidates were held on August 11, 1969.

(3.) On these facts on October 7, 1969, the petitioner moved this court with the present Writ petition on an allegation that though eligible and once called for an interview the respondent had wrongfully and arbitrarily excluded the petitioner from the interview and as such from an opportunity for being considered for such appointment. This court did not issue any rule on the writ petition when it was entertained but directed a notice of the application to be served on the commission which was duly served. Thereafter the application was adjourned from day to day but the respondent refused to appear or answer the allegations made in the writ petition. No step was taken to enlighten this court under what circumstances the petitioner who was once selected and called for an interview was subsequently excluded therefrom. Accordingly, on January 2, 1970 this court had no other alternative but to issue a rule on the uncontroverted statements made in the writ petition.