DILIP KUMAR ADAK Vs. AMAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for alleged willful, deliberate, intentional and contumacious act of the respondent for disregarding/disobeying the order passed by this Court on 9th April, 1997.

(2.) The petitioners have, inter alia, alleged that the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 9th April, 1997 in W.P. 1353 (W) of 1997 by issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue appointment to the petitioners as primary teacher within the district of Howrah. They further, alleged that they were the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher for trained as well as untrained posts and were directed to appear for viva-voce test on 16-8-1993 and 3-8-1993 respectively and were selected in the said interivew. They were placed in the panel prepared in the year 1993 above the other candidates some of them were appointed subsequently but somehow they did not get any appointment. They, therefore, filed the above case for necessary direction. The litigation regarding the preparation of panel and appointments made thereon did not culminate here but a special leave petition was filed in the Apex Court which was decided in the year 1995. The Supreme Court had, however, directed that there shall be district wise list of panel of the successful candidates and the same shall be approved by the Director of School Education. But, when the respondent Council/Howrah District Primary School Council failed to discharge its burden by issuing the letter of appointment to none of the petitioners they filed a case being C.O. 4843 (W) of 1996 but due to prolonged pendency of the matter another case was filed before the Court which was disposed of by issuing necessary direction thereon, to the District Primary School Council to extend the life-span of the panel till 24th January, 1997.

(3.) The writ petitioners, however, made discreet enquiry and they came to know that the District Primary School Council had issued letter of appointment on 17-1-1997 by adopting pick and choose method selecting own candidates which was not in accordance with merit. Therefore, the petitioners being aggrieved by such deliberate and intentional violation of the Court's order filed this application. It has been further highlighted in the application that the petitioners came to know that the respondent Council already issued 41 appointments out of that, 25 appointments have been issued from the panel in favour of those, who secured less marks in aggregate than other 26 candidates. Petitioners submitted that the respondent with a view of choose his own candidates surreptitiously prepared the panel followed by issuing appointments arbitrarily, intentionally and whimsically. They have quoted some marks said to have been secured by the petitioners vis-a-vis the other candidates, who were favoured with the order of appointments.