SUSMITA MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. CHANDERNAGORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in person to argue her case before this court. She was a candidate for interview conducted pursuant to two interview letters dated 6th and 11th December, 1989 sent by the Education Officer, Chandernagore Municipal Corporation for appointment as teacher. The interview was held on 20th December, 1989. She claims to have been first in the panel prepared and being aggrieved by the appointment granted to the added private respondent no.7, had approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the course of hearing Mr.Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent, had handed up a copy of the panel prepared pursuant to such interview. It appeared from such panel prepared, the private respondent scored grand total of 58.75 marks while the petitioner scored 55.12 marks. The difference, as it appeared from the panel prepared, was by reason of the private respondent having scored more marks on account of her better academic qualification of having BA (First Class) and having scored one mark in extra -curricular activities where the petitioner did not score any.

(2.) THERE did not appear to by any error apparent regarding higher marks accorded to the private respondent on account of her better academic qualification. That was not disputed by the petitioner when it was demonstrated in the course of hearing or in hearings on adjourned dates later. However, the petitioner had submitted that in spite of her having enclosed certificates showing extra -curricular activities, no marks in respect thereof was awarded to her. To substantiate such submissions she had relied on the Recruitment Rules issued by the Director of School Education dated 2nd December, 1989 as amended in particular Rule 8(VII) regarding extra -curricular activities. She had also relied on one of her affidavits affirmed on 3rd December, 1993 wherein she had alleged to have produced her certificates before this court. She submitted the private respondent had also produced her certificates which were rejected by this court since the certificates produced by the private respondent were not issued by institutions/organisations recognised by the State Government as required under the Recruitment Rules of 1989. She, therefore, submitted the one mark awarded to the private respondent taken together with no marks awarded to her with regard to extra -curricular activities vitiated the selection of the private respondent.

(3.) MR . De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Chandernagore Municipal Corporation submitted by relying on affidavit affirmed on 30th June, 1993 by respondent no.8 being the Education Officer of the Corporation, in particular paragraph 4 therein, the said respondent had deposed that the petitioner did not produce a single certificate regarding extra -curricular activities in the interview and as such the question of awarding any marks to her in that regard did not arise at all. He had submitted further the private respondent had submitted certificates regarding her extra -curricular activities, on evaluation of which she was duly awarded one mark. Mr. Chatterjee added that if the one mark awarded to his client the private respondent was not taken into account, even then the private respondent had scored more marks and thus was duly appointed. He, therefore submitted, the writ petition should be dismissed without the court being drawn into a dispute on facts. This court had required the Chandernagore Municipal Corporation to produce the copies of the certificates of the private respondent with regard to her extra -curricular activities against which she was awarded one mark.