NABIN KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the notice dated 24th January, 2009, being Annexure-P-2 at page 20, the petitioners filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the said notice, the Secretary of the Samsi Agril. High School (H.S.), invited applications for appointment of non-teaching staff in permanent vacancy. It was for the post of Clerk (both reserved for S.C. & General), Peon and two posts of Laboratory Attendants (one for General and the other reserved for S.T. category). Grievance of the petitioners, as ventilated by learned Counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee on their behalf, relates to alleged illegality in such recruitment process. It was submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the West Bengal School Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008 came into force on and from 1st January, 2009. By such amendment, all the recruitment in the post of Non-Teaching Staff in any Secondary School was required to be routed through School Service Commission. Section 7 of the Amending Act, as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, makes any appointment invalid, if it is in contravention of the Amendment Act of 2008. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if any selection process commenced after coming into force of the said Act of 2008, the same was required to be done by the School Service Commission and the school had no jurisdiction to initiate such selection process.

(2.) While assailing the notice dated 24th January, 2009, it was submitted that the authority concerned made no attempt to fill up the said posts from amongst the died-inharness category. It appears that the petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Clerk (General), petitioner No. 2 applied for the post of Laboratory Attendant (S.T.), petitioner No. 3 sought for appointment as Laboratory Attendant (General) whereas petitioner No. 4 applied for the post of Peon (General). It was then submitted that interview was conducted between 22nd February, 2009 and 26th February, 2009. Petitioners, thus, participated in the selection process without having any knowledge about the amendment of School Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2008.

(3.) Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 submitted a representation dated 20.2.2009 addressed to the respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), District- Malda, alleging that one Sadhan Chakraborty made payment of huge sum in order to get appointment in the post of Clerk (General). Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were selected respectively for the post of Clerk (S.C.), Peon (General), Laboratory Attendant (General), Clerk (General) and Laboratory Attendant (S.T.) on the basis of the aforesaid selection process in which the petitioners, of course, also participated. The President of the Managing Committee, by letter dated 6th of March, 2007 informed the District Inspector concerned that the selection against the said five posts was vitiated by illegality and corrupt practice. He wanted cancellation of the panel and proposed fresh interview in accordance with law. Respondent No. 4, however, had already sent the panel to respondent No. 3 for approval. This prompted the petitioners to rush to this Court for redressal of their grievances.