SUPRIYA DEB Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the desire of the Appeal Court, both the matters are taken up for hearing together. In the first Writ petitions, Sri Prabir Prasad Roy (C.O. 5448 (W) of 1994) asked for the relief directing the respondent viz. District Inspector of School (SE) Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, to accord necessary sanction or approval of the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of Golabari High School pursuant to the interview held on 25th March, 1989. Further relief has been sought for to cancel, rescind and withdraw the impugned resolution dated 16th Oct., 1993 adopted by the Managing Committee of the said School, which is Annexure 'D' to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the Managing Committee decided to cancel the selection process and to hold fresh interview on various grounds.

(2.) So far as the relief claimed in prayer (a) is concerned, in my view, sanction or approval of the petitioner cannot be granted until and unless the panel is approved by the Managing Committee followed by D.I. However, ignoring the aforesaid mistake in the prayer, I decided to consider the matter in depth on the facts and circumstances as stated in the petition. There is no doubt that the petitioner appeared in the selection process on 25th March, 1989. Four out of Seven called candidates appeared in the said selection process and the petitioner claims to have stood first in the panel. The Selection Committee formed the panel. After selection being done and the formation of the panel, it was the turn of the Managing Committee to approve it or not as the relevant recruitment rules then applicable provide that the Selection Committee after preparing the panel on the date of interview shall submit the same to the Managing Committee/ Ad hoc Committee/Administrator. On being examined by the Managing Committee/ Ad hoc Committee/Administrator, the panel shall be forwarded to the D.I.S. (S.E.) for approval with all relevant papers within 15 days from the date of interview. Upon examination, it was found by the Managing Committee that the panel could not be sent. So they decided to hold a fresh interview for various reasons by adopting a resolution. That resolution is also challenged in the writ petition.

(3.) Pursuant to this resolution, even before filing of the present writ petition, fresh prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools was obtained and this permission was granted on 31st Dec., 1993. It appears that on 15th Jan., 1993, the writ petitioner Prabir made a complaint with the District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of this compliant, on 3rd Sept., 1993, the District Inspector of Schools caused an enquiry to be made by Assistant Inspector of Schools to the School and report to be submitted in respect of appointment to the post in question. It appears from the records that the Assistant Inspector submitted such report and recommended fresh interview to be taken of course calling all the candidates who had been called on 31st Jan., 1989 viz. the petitioner and other six persons along with the sponsored candidates. Pursuant to this second permission on 29th July, 1997, subsequent interview was held to fill up the same very post. Before this second interview could be held, the present petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained interim order to the effect that no appointment shall be made until and unless the D.I. considers the question of approval to the panel and grant approval. This order has not yet been challenged or upset. Meanwhile, Mr. Maity's client viz Supriya Deb filed a writ petition in this Court asking relief for granting approval to the panel prepared on the basis of the selection held on 29th July, 1997. On this writ petition initially the Honourable Mr. Justice N.K. Mitra (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to pass appropriate order granting approval to the panel of the second interview. However, it was not drawn attention of His Lordship that the previous interim order passed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Paritosh Mukherjee was in operation. As such an appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order at the instance of Prabir. The Appeal Court set aside the order of Justice N.K. Mitra and asked this Court to decide this matter once for all.