LAVEHMAN CHANDRA NANDY Vs. STATE OF W.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate.

(2.) In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 5 and his appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in Physical Education Group in Kalyanswari High School. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner since secured high marks with reference to the academic qualifications are concerned, the petitioner expected his position would be the first position in the panel. But unfortunately it appears that the petitioner stood second in the panel. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Selection Committee has favoured the private respondent No. 5 in the matter of selection. The petitioner submitted a representation on 9th April, 2000 before the District Inspector of Schools concerned to that effect. This writ application has been opposed by the respondents Government as well as the Private respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. From the affidavit it appears that the Selection Committee was rightly constituted and the panel was approved by the Managing Committee as well as the District Inspector of Schools concerned and thereby appointment letter was issued. It further appears that the private respondents no. 5 is working in the school in question with effect from 8th Feb., 2001. However, considering the rival contentions of the parties it appears that the present writ application is not at all maintainable in view of the settled legal position that though the petitioner has asserted the case of malafide against the members of the Selection Committee in the matter of selection, but nobody of such Committee has been made a party in this writ application. It is a settled law that until and unless the persons against whom such mala fide action is pleaded, are not made as party and be heard, the court will not probe into the matter of such mala fide, even if it is alleged. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1997 (6) SCC 228: [1997(4) SLR 627 (SC)] and in the case Dr. J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp(4) SCC 89 : [1995(6) SLR 12 (SC)] _ The contentions of the petitioner that the petitioner was required to be placed in the first position in the panel in view of the higher marks as secured for academic qualification is not legally sustainable. The panel is prepared on the basis of the marks as obtained for academic qualification as well as on class demonstration and oral interview. It is now a settled legal position that a person despite higher academic qualification, may not be successful in the oral interview, and in that view of the matter there is no legal basis on the contentions as made by the petitioner. Under the statutory rule academic marks as well as the interview marks both are factors for preparation of the panel. Besides the aforesaid issues, this Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction also cannot assess the subjective marks of the candidates as were determined by the Selection Committee and expert body upon holding interview. In that view of the matter this court is not finding any merit in this writ application. Furthermore, from the record it appears that the contention of the petitioner is not correct so far as acquiring of higher marks in academic a qualification. From the record that is the score-sheet it appears that the respondent No. 5 got 34.36 for academic qualification whereas the petitioner secured 31.06. Hence the factual contention of the petitioner is not correct.

(3.) In that view of the matter, this writ application stands dismissed.