AMITAVA HATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner participated in the process of recruitment for the post of para-teacher and the petitioner stood first in the panel prepared for the purpose of giving appointment to the post of para-teacher. Unfortunately the candidature of the petitioner was turned down for the reasons best known to the authorities. The petitioner then filed writ petition no.452 of 2007 and this Court directed the District Project Officer, Murshidabad to dispose of the matter of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order thereon. The District Project Officer accordingly directed the petitioner to file necessary papers to prepare a fresh score sheet and thereby disposed of the matter. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner admittedly submitted such papers vide annexure P3 way back in the year 2007 but the authorities did not take any action and that's why the petitioner has again filed this writ application on 13th December, 2012. The specific prayer of the petitioner is that the District Project Officer, Murshidabad be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as additional para-teacher in terms of his memo No. 100/SSM/2007 dated 24th July, 2007.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner waited for about five and half years in order to get reply from the District Project Officer, Murshidabad but she actually did not get any reply and thereafter finding no other alternative, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. On careful scrutiny of the writ petition I find that in paragraph 9 the petitioner has stated that the Circle Project Coordinator as well as the District Project Officer, Murshidabad did nothing for indefinite period though the petitioner was requested to wait.

(3.) The respondent no.6 has filed affidavit in opposition. This respondent no.6 actually was directed by the District Project Officer to look into the matter of the petitioner.