PREMANANDA CHAKRABORTY Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR PARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although this appeal arises against an order dated 18th Dec., 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 21979 (W) of 1997, on 16-2-98 when the said matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the entire writ application should be heard in the interest of all concerned and pursuant to the said order, he have heard the parties on merit of the writ application.

(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. A post of Assistant Teacher in Raghunath Bari R. T. High School (Higher Secondary), Tamluk Midnapore, in Science (Botany) fell vacant. It appears from a xerox copy of the order of prior permission bearing Memo No. 808 dated 30th April, 1997 which has been produced before us by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Administrator, that an additional post in the Science Group/Botany was sanctioned by the Director of School Education in terms of its Memo No. 1464 (146) G.A. dated 20-6-92. In paragraph B of the said order which deals with specific qualifications prescribed for appointment, it was mentioned M.Sc. in Botany, preferably B.Ed./P.G.B.T. (Unreserved) in the Scale of pay Rs. 1780/ to 3780.00. The private respondent who has been added as a party in the writ application admittedly does not hold qualification of M.Sc. in Botany which qualification the first respondent possesses. Me private respondent, however, was allowed to appear at the interview in terms of the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court, as would appear from paragraph 14 of the writ application. Admittedly, the Administrator of the School in terms of the aforementioned order of prior permission intimated the vacancy in the said post to the Employment Exchange in terms of the recruitment rules framed by the Director of School Education in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Clause (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (1) and clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided), 1969. Admittedly, the name of the private respondent was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, presumably as he did not qualify therefore in view of the 4'act that he was of older of post-graduate decree in Botany. However, in terms of the order of this Court, he was allowed to participate in the interview and when a panel was prepared his name was at the serial No. I thereof. The question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the private respondent was eligible for holding the said post.

(3.) Our attention has been drawn to a Government letter bearing No. 462Edn(s) dated 20th Aug., 1990 which reads thus :