BISWANATH DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties.

(2.) By the judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 prayer (a) of this writ application was rejected but the prayers (b), (c) and (d) were kept open for decision by the Larger Bench subject to the decision of the reference as made by me disagreeing with the view of G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) passed in the case of Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal & Ors. as decided on 11th February, 1994 being an unreported decision whereby G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) held that while considering approval issue of a panel, the District Inspector of Schools concerned had no jurisdiction to disapprove. It has been held further by G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had the power to approve the panel and in the event of disapproval, the same would be referred to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. Such view of G.R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) was considered as not correct view by this Court and this Court held in the said judgment that the District Inspector of Schools concerned got the power to approve as well as dis-approve any panel and to pass any decision, modifying and/or rectifying the panel. However, following the judicial discipline, this Court accordingly referred the matter for decision by the Larger Bench about the power and jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned when a panel is referred for his decision by the Managing Committee of the School in terms of the Recruitment Rules issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The Division Bench of this Court comprising of Ashok Kumar Mathur, CJ. and Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. By the judgment dated 8th October, 2002 answered the reference by holding that the view as stated by me in the judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 regarding jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned to dis-approve, to modify and/or to rectify the panel was right. The Division Bench accordingly held in answering to the reference in the following terms:-

(3.) The Division Bench further held in answering the reference that the decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 28th March, 1995 was bad in law whereby the said authority approved the panel though there was no rectification and/or modification of the defects as were directed to be cured by the letters dated 25th September, 1992, 17th March, 1993 and 16th March, 1994. Further in answering to the question No. 3 as referred by me, the Division Bench held that the panel as prepared after cancelling the earlier one by holding fresh interview of the sponsored candidates is correct and valid. After holding that the Division Bench again has referred the matter back for a decision in the light of the findings confirming the earlier views of this Court about the power of the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8th October, 2002 was supplied to all the learned advocates for effective assistance in terms of my order dated 21st January, 2003. The learned advocate for the petitioner has frankly stated that he has nothing to submit further in view of the answer of reference of the Division Bench. Having regard to such position, now I have to decide the prayers (b), (c) and (d) of the writ application, which was kept pending for decision, the prayers (b), (c) and (d) of the writ application read thus:-