SAHJAHAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, he is a suitable candidate for the purpose of getting service of Assistant Teacher in the concerned school. He is B.Sc. (Hons.) in Mathematics. He is also having M.Sc. in Mathematics as well as B.Ed. He obtained his M.Sc. qualification as well as B.Ed. from one B.N. Mondal University, Bihar. Petitioner's name was duly forwarded by the Employment Exchange along with others suitable candidates. The petitioner duly appeared before the Selection Committee where he produced two sets of mark-sheets including qualification in B.Ed. The Selection Committee prepared a panel of three candidates. The petitioner stood first in that panel. Managing Committee of the school duly accepted the panel and submitted the same before the concerned District Inspector of Schools. However, since the panel was not approved for a considerable period, a writ petition was moved before this High Court when this court was pleased to direct the District Inspector of Schools to approve the panel within a particular period. The panel was duly approved. The appointment letter was given by the school authority. But the concerned District Inspector of Schools had not approved the appointment.

(2.) A plea has been taken by the authority that although the petitioner has supplied the marks of B.Ed. Examination as 732 but, in fact, he obtained 698 marks, therefore,the petitioner has given a false statement before the Selection Committee for the purpose of having his candidature approved on such fact which subsequently found untrue. However, his candidature should be cancelled. In an erstwhile writ proceeding, once again such stand was turned down by a Bench of this Court and the matter was directed to be placed before the concerned Director of School Education for his consideration. In the present writ petition a challenge has been thrown in respect of such departmental order passed by the concerned Director of School Education.

(3.) It appears that the said Director of School Education came to a conclusion on the basis of the inference that there cannot be any convincing point to hold that the Selection Committee has awarded marks on the basis of 732 marks instead of the alleged statement that the petitioner had submitted B.Ed. mark-sheet which was 698 marks. From the above observation, it can be concluded that the petitioner had produced before the Selection Committee his B.Ed. mark-sheet showing 732 marks and that mark- sheet was not issued by the University. Therefore, the selection on the basis of unauthenticated mark-sheet is not valid. The petitioner adopted unfairness. This corrupt attempt disqualifies him for being considered for selection in the post of Assistant Teacher in question.