SABITA ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vacancy on the post of Class IV staff (matron) in Radhikapur High School, P.S. Kaliaganj, District Uttar Dinajpur (hereafter the school) fell vacant. By operation of the relevant roster, appointment on the post had to be made from amongst candidates belonging to the scheduled caste. The secretary of the managing committee of the school approached the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur (hereafter the DIoS) for prior permission to fill up such vacancy. The DIoS vide memo dated April 5, 2005 granted prior permission to the secretary to proceed with the recruitment process in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Director of School Education vide memo dated November 1, 1999. Upon receipt of the prior permission, the secretary approached the Employment Officer -in -Charge, District Employment Exchange, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur to sponsor names of eligible SC candidates. The employment officer vide memo dated May 11, 2005 sponsored the names of 20 candidates, starting with Sri Amalesh Kr. Roy and ending with Sri Animesh Roy.

(2.) IT would appear from the list of eligible candidates sponsored by the Employment Officer -in -Charge that the said Amalesh Kr. Roy was registered on January 4, 1985 whereas the said Animesh Roy was registered on December 21, 1988 and the other 18 (eighteen) candidates were registered in between January 4, 1985 and December 21, 1988. The list included the name of Smt. Sarama Baishya (Mali) (hereafter Sarama) at serial no. 6. She is the applicant in CAN 1667 (an application for addition of party), which I propose to decide while deciding the writ petitions being W.P. 22618(W) of 2011 and W.P. 4888(W) of 2007.

(3.) SMT . Sabita Roy (hereafter Sabita) and Smt. Puspa Roy (hereafter Puspa), the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 in W.P. 22618(W) of 2011 respectively, were not sponsored by the employment exchange since both of them were not registered between 1985 and 1988. While Sabita was registered with the employment exchange in 1990, Puspa was registered in the year 2000. Both Sabita and Puspa had the occasion to move independent writ petitions before this Court, being W.P. 12047(W) of 2005 and W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 respectively. There is some controversy as to whether Puspa in fact moved W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 or not. It has been contended by Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate representing Puspa that W.P. 12045(W) of 2005 had not been moved by her. He argued that the signature of Puspa ought to be tallied with her signature available in other writ petitions/affidavits.