KAZI MANWAR FARUK Vs. MANAB KUMAR DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON November 29, 1996 the District Inspector of School, Murshidabad granted prior permission to Patikabari High School to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher in science. The requisite qualification was b. Sc. (Pure), preferably B. Ed. The Managing Committee thereafter asked the employment Exchange, Baharampur to sponsor the names of eligible candidates. The Employment Exchange sent 20 names including one Golam Mustafa. The appellant Kazi Manwar Faruk and the respondent No. 1, Manab Kumar Dutta moved this Hon'ble Court separately, inter alia, praying for permission to participate in the selection process as according to them they were also eligible for the said post, however, they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The writ petition of the appellant was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated April 9, 1997 with a direction upon the Employment Exchange to forward the name of the appellant. The school authority was, however, directed to permit the appellant to participate at the interview along with other sponsored candidates if he was otherwise qualified for the post in question. The learned single Judge also made it clear that such permission was subject to verification of the fact that any candidate junior to the appellant in the matter of registration had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Similar order was also passed in case of respondent No. 1 by the learned Judge on April 8, 1997. The School authority permitted both of them to appear before the Selection Committee. Altogether 22 candidates were considered for the post. The Selection Committee prepared a panel by placing the appellant in the first position, Golam Mustafa in the second position and respondent No. 1 in the third position. According to the school authority they verified from the Employment Exchange whether any junior had been sponsored. The Employment Exchange vide letter dated June 2, 1997 appearing at page 191 of the Paper Book observed, "it is found from the scrutiny of those registration of the sponsored candidates that the juniors name have already been sponsored".

(2.) THE District Inspector approved the panel on June 9, 1997. The appellant was given the appointment and he joined the school on June 27, 1997 and since then he was working. On August 6, 1997 Mustafa filed a writ petition with a grievance that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification. The learned single Judge disposed of his writ petition by directing the Director, School education to dispose of the writ petition of Golam Mustafa. The Director by his reasoned order dated April 19, 1998 observed that although the appellant had economics, Physics and Mathematics as combination in his graduation course there was no bar to select him for the post of science teacher as per the prior permission granted therefor. Mustafa did not proceed further in the matter.

(3.) MANAB, however, moved a writ petition complaining about the selection of the appellant on various grounds. It was contended by Manab that selection process was vitiated by illegality. It was also contended that the appellant was the nephew of the then Secretary of the school being the respondent No. 7 therein. It was also contended that Manab had Physics, Chemistry and mathematics as combination in his graduation course, even then he was not considered properly although the appellant did not have Chemistry as a combination subject. The learned Single Judge directed the District Inspector to consider his representation. The District Inspector by his order dated July 15, 1998 rejected the said representation by observing that there was no anomaly. Challenging the order of the District Inspector Manab filed another writ petition which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated December 3, 2003. His Lordship set aside the order of the district Inspector. His Lordship also quashed the appointment given in favour of the appellant. Hence, this appeal by the appellant.