CHAIRMAN AD HOC COMMITTEE Vs. SWARAJ KUMAR PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.6.90 and order dated 7.1.97 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners was allowed and the same benefit has been extended to the added respondents and has also been directed to give appointment to the writ petitioners and the added respondents. The admitted fact of the matter is that a panel was prepared in the year 1981. The writ petitioners and the added respondents are said to have been empanelled as no appointment was given to them from the said panel for a long time. They filed a writ petition in the year 1988 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The learned Judge by a judgment and order dated 6.6.90 upon following a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Asoka Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors, reported in Calcutta Law Times 1989(2) HC 139 held that the petitioners should be appointed. In Asoka Roy's case it was directed as follows:

(3.) In the writ petition the appellant was not initially impleaded as a party. However, from the order of the court it appears that the appellant was impleaded as a party on a later date. Paper Book was filed. In the meantime, the West Bengal Rule of Primary Education was repealed and replaced by the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. The State of West Bengal in exercise of its power under section 105 of the 1973 Act framed rule in the year 1991. The District Primary School Council was constituted by the State Government. Pursuant to the order, in furtherance of the provisions of 1973 and 1991 Rules, the Recruitment and Leaves Rules were framed, in terms thereof, Rules 8 and 9 of Recruitment and Leave Rules lay down the procedure in what manner the recruitments have to be done. It is now well settled that in terms of Rule 3E of the Bengal Primary Education Rules, 1940 the life of the panel was one year with a power to the State of extend the same for a further period of two years. A Division Bench of this court comprising the Hon'ble N.P. Singh, C.J. and Tarun Chatterjee, J. in Jitendra Nath Chatterjee's case reported in (1990)II CLJ 1, inter alia, held that in view of Rule 3 the life of the panel would not have been extended. The learned judges held that after expiry of the said panel no direction could be issued for appointment from the said panel. Asoka Roy (supra), therefore, stood overruled by the necessary implication of the Division Bench of this court.