SUJAN CHOWDHURY Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition alleged that his name was sent by the local Employment Exchange for the post of clerk of Bangaljhi Swami Vivekananda Vidyamandir (hereinafter termed as said School). The name of the petitioner was sent by the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagar on 27.6.2001 along with some other names. Interview for the said post of clerk was held on Aug. 19, 2001. In the Interview letter it was nowhere written that the petitioner was to undergo written test. According to the petitioner, when he arrived at the venue of the Interview the petitioner came to know that a written test was to be taken as well as a test for type writing along with a oral test. According to the petitioner for the written test, the candidates were asked to solve a mathematical problem. The respondent No. 5 expert member of the Selection Committee, copied the mathematical problem on the Black Board. The petitioner further alleged that the expert member copied the problem wrongly on the Black Board, instead of 4 months he nad written 14 months. The student had to calculate the total interest at the end of one year. The candidates were confused since they could understand that something wrong is there in the mathematical problem. The petitioner asked the examiner as to whether he is to calculate the total interest for one year or two years. Before any answer was given by the examiner as to the correctness of the mathematical problem the petitioner found that the respondent No. 7 has already started solving the mathematical problem. After sometime the expert member made it known to all the candidates that instead of 14 months it would be 4 months. On coming to know about the same all the candidates deleted 14 months and put down 4 months on their answer scripts. Hence the answer scripts of every candidate had certain scratch marks. But the answer scripts of the respondent No. 7 had no scratch though the problem was wrongly recorded on the Black Board, instead of 4 months it was written 14 months. The student had to calculate the total interest at the end of one year. The candidates were confused since they could understand that something wrong is there in the mathematical problem. The petitioner asked the examiner as to whether they would calculate the total interest for one year or two years. Before any answer was given by the examiner as to the correctness of the mathematical problem the petitioner found that the respondent No. 7 has already started solving the mathematical problem. After sometimes the expert member made it known to the candidates that instead of 14 months it would be 4 months. On coming to know the same of the candidates deleted 14 months and put down 4 months on their answer scripts. Hence the answer scripts of every candidate had certain scratch marks. But the answer scripts of the respondent No. 7 had no scratch mark at all and the petitioner was able to see this because the respondent No. 7 was sitting beside the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner also alleged that the person who examined the answer scripts was not a member of the Selection Committee but only an Asst. Teacher of the said School. According to the petitioner, this act of correction of answer scripts by someone who is not in the Selection Committee is highly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and that was one at the instance of the respondent No. 5 (The Headmaster) of the said School. The petitioner further alleged that since the Interview letter which was served upon the candidates did not disclose anything as regards the tests in writing or oral and kind of typing test but only said that Interview is to be held. After getting the Interview letter, the petitioner went to the Headmaster and Secretary of the School to clarify the kind of tests to be taken. The Headmaster and the Secretary informed the petitioner that since knowledge of typing was a must tests in both English and Bengali typing were to be taken and an oral test was also to be taken. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent No. 7 had got a little knowledge in English typing but no knowledge in Bengali typing and as such the Headmaster and the Secretary to protect the interest of the petitioner did not take Bengali typing test and only English typing test was taken by the Selection Committee and no Bengali typing test was taken. According to the petitioner, this was done only to put the respondent No. 7 in the position.

(3.) It is also the allegation of the petitioner that as per rules on the very day the interview is taken. The answer scripts are supposed to be examined then and there in the day itself, but in this case even though the mathematical problem was examined there itself. The Headmaster and the Secretary on some pretext or other did not allow the answer scripts for the type tests to be examined on the same day itself. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No. 7 is very close to the respondent No. 6 (The Headmaster) and also lives in the same locality and thus the respondents nos. 6 and 7 have developed an unholly nexus between themselves so as to select and appoint the respondent No. 7 in the post of Clerk of the said School. According to the petitioner, as per the Rules the Panel has to be prepared on the day of Interview itself out of the candidates who became eligible for the said post but in this case Panel was not prepared on the same date. Instead, the respondent No. 6 took all the documents of the Interview with him to his home and prepared a Panel by himself placing the respondent No. 7 first in the Panel and the petitioner, second in the Panel and got the same signed from the other members of the respondent No. 5 who subscribed to his views excepting the respondent No. 5(d). After a few days the Headmaster asked the respondent No. 5(d) to sign the Panel but the respondent No. 5(d) being dissatisfied in such type of illegality refused to sign the Panel. The petitioner has also stated that under the Rules the Panel including the score sheets are to be prepared and signed on the very same date of Interview but in the instant case the same was prepared long after the Interview and was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia after expiry of 15 days from the preparation of the Panel. Three members of the Managing Committee, namely, (1) Shri Dijendralal Nath Sarkar, the President of the Managing Committee; the respondent No. 4(a) Shri Ajit Kr. Tarafdar, life-member of the Managing Committee; the respondent No. 4(j) Shri Nilmoni Sadhukhan, the Guardian Representative also made representation dated Jan. 31, 2001 to the respondent No. 3, the District Inspector of Schools, to hold re-interview for the said post of Clerk in view of the illegalities caused in preparation of the Panel. The petitioner has made this representation dated 31st Jan., 2001 as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat nominee, the respondent No. 5(d) herein being dissatisfied also made a representation and requested the District Inspector of Schools to hold a fresh Interview. The said representation has been made Annexure P-5 to the writ petition.