LAWS(CAL)-2003-3-60

CHANCHAL KR. PATRA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

Decided On March 19, 2003
Chanchal Kr. Patra Appellant
V/S
State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) A post of a clerk in Jujersha Prannath Manna Institution. Vill. Jujersha, P.S. Panchia, Dist. Howrah fell vacant. Pursuant to the Recruitment Rules as framed under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1973, the school authority asked the concerned local Employment Exchange to sponsor 20 candidates who were registered with the employment exchange and had the requisite qualification for being appointed in the said post. The concerned Employee Exchange sponsored 20 candidates of which 19 candidates were registered with the Employment Exchange in the year 1979 and one other who was registered as a physically handicapped candidate in the year 1981. The writ petitioner tiled this writ petition before this Court alleging, at for the purpose of sponsoring, the said employment exchange forwarded the ames of the candidates who were registered later than the writ petitioner. In the said writ petition no particulars of the candidates who were sponsored by the said employment Exchange were disclosed. Even a single registration number with its year of registration had not been disclosed in the writ petition to establish that the petitioner was registered earlier to the said candidate who had been sponsored for the purpose of recruitment in the said post. The allegations were thus clearly vague as ell as wide. While the writ petition was moved on such allegation the respondents id not to appear and as a result of which by an interim order the petitioner was permitted to appear for the interview with the observation that after such interview of the petitioner came within the zone of consideration, then the respondent authority could not appoint him but the appointment would be subject to the final decision of his writ petition. It was further observed that if the petitioner did not come within the ne of consideration, the respondent authority would be entitled to appoint the person who would be selected on the basis of such interview.

(3.) The respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition the list of the candidates as sponsored by the employment Exchange has been disclosed. It is evident therefrom that not a single candidate who was registered later than the writ petitioner with the concerned Employment Exchange was spot order for the purpose of recruitment in the said post. On the other hand the candidates who were registered in the year 1979 were sponsored whereas the writ petitioner was registered with the concerned Employment Exchange in the year 991.