SUDEB KANTI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before the Court responded to an advertisement of 14/1/2011 for filling up a few designated posts for non-teaching staff in the Bikramjeet Goswami Memorial College, Purulia. The petitioners applied for the said posts and appeared in the written examination on 6/2/2011. The petitioners state that they successfully completed the written examination and received a call for appearing before the Standing Committee for an interview on 13/6/2011. The interview was however not held as scheduled. The petitioners allege that several persons were appointed in the advertised posts thereafter. The petitioners further allege that all the appointees were related to members of the Governing Body or the Principal of the College. The petitioners seek quashing of the selection and the appointments of the candidates being respondent nos. 9-15, to the posts of non-teaching staff in the College.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners alleges bias on the part of the Governing Body and submits that each of the appointees was related in some manner or the other to the President and Members of the Governing Body as well as the Standing Committee of the College. Counsel further submits that despite the petitioners receiving letters for an interview, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the oral test round which was scheduled to be held on 13/6/2011. It is further submitted that the appointments did not follow any proper process which would be evident from the Government nominee on the Board of the Governing Body lodging a complaint before the competent authority on the mode and manner of the appointments.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State defends the appointments and submits that the panel was prepared by the Selection Committee and was approved by the Director of Public Instructions on 2/1/2012. Counsel submits that the complaint made in the writ petition is an after-thought and suffers from unexplained delay. It is further submitted that the petitioners are unsuccessful candidates and hence do not have locus standi to challenge the selection of the private respondents.