KISHAMAT ADABARI HIGH SCHOOL Vs. BIKASH CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners having been unsuccessful in the Court of the District Judge, Coach Behar in Misc. Appeal No. 6/94 and also in the Court of Munsif, Dinhata in T.S. No. 88/94 by an order of injunction have preferred this revisional application.

(2.) The opposite party No. 1 has instituted a suit challenging the recruitment procedure for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in Kishamat Adabari High School (hereinafter referred to as the School) in T.S. No. 88/94 before the Court of Munsif, Dinhata. It is inter alia stated in the suit that the District Inspector (South East Coach Behar) granted permission for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in Science at the aforementioned institution. The School authority pursuant to the permission granted by the District Inspector of School addressed a letter to Dinhata Employment Exchange for sponsoring the name of the candidates for selection to the said post. The local Exchange is said to have sponsored 11 candidates including the names of the plaintiff-defendant Nos. 5 and 6. It is seriously disputed by the Plaintiff-opposite party that though the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were ineligible to be a candidate for the interview their names have been improperly and illegally sponsored by the local Employment Exchange. It is further alleged that in respect of an appointment of post graduate teacher the names of such candidates have to be sponsored by the national Employment Exchange. The Managing Committee in utter flagrant of the rules had illegally selected the name of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 against serial Nos. 1 and 2 for the post of Assistant Teacher. Since the recruitment rules were violated the defendant No. 5 cannot be appointed against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher. Thus, the plaintiff-opposite party has filed the suit for declaration that the interview held on 28.6.1994 for the selection of candidates to the post of Assistant Teacher of defendant No. 1's School is wrong, illegal malafide and without jurisdiction. A further declaration was also sought that the Managing Committee having violated the norms for calling candidates for the interview to the post of Assistant Teacher of the defendant No. 1 the selection of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and also if any approval made by the District Inspector of Schools is invalid. illegal and shall not bind on the plaintiff It is further prayed that the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed to the post as per the norms and interview. The plaintiff sought for ad interim injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 prohibiting them from issuing any appointment to the post of the Assistant Teacher pursuant to the purported selection which had been made by the interview. The learned Munsif on hearing both the parties restrained the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from taking any steps regarding the appointment of Assistant Teacher till the hearing of the suit. D.1. Schools (S.E.) was further restrained from according approval to the panel of the names forwarded by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court these petitioners tiled an appeal before the District Judge, Coach Behar who too. while affirming the order of injunction, modified the same vacating the Bald order against the District Inspector of School.