LISA BANERJEE (DASGUPTA) Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought the cancellation of the letter dated March 1, 2013 being Annexure P/7 to the writ petition on a short point that the same was issued by the Director, Mass Education Extension Directorate on the ground that a reason given for the Directorate s inability to approve the said panel was not supported by any statutory rules. In this matter two affidavits in opposition were filed. The first affidavit in opposition which was filed was in respect of the writ petition as it had been filed and was affirmed by one Dilip Kumar Das on September 20, 2013. Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit and an opposition was filed thereto by the District Mass Education Extension Officer, Kolkata under the same directorate and this was affirmed on August 5, 2019 by one Subhojit Mondal. I shall refer to these two as the first affidavit in opposition and the second affidavit in opposition. Replies have been filed thereto and I have considered all these materials before proceeding to judgment.

(2.) It appears that the deponent in the said affidavit in opposition was himself a part of the selection committee which recommended the panel of candidates to the Director of Mass Education Extension at a time when the said person was the Deputy Director. In the said panel as initially framed the writ petitioner as also two other persons who were named after a due selection process figured as the three candidates. In the first affidavit in opposition it was alleged that none of the candidates had the appropriate qualifications of eligibility for the post of Principal of the Calcutta Blind School. In the supplementary affidavit Ms. Sengupta has shown that there is a judgment passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P. no. 20013 (W) of 2010 of July 30, 2015 after remand by the Hon ble Division Bench. Page 75 of the supplementary affidavit shows that on the basis of the finding of the Hon ble coordinate Bench intra partes it cannot be said that the petitioner being the first candidate empanelled was not eligible. I am setting out a portion of the order of the coordinate Bench which supports the contentions of the writ petitioner.

(3.) As such, the original objection taken by the respondents that none of the candidates was eligible is no longer available to the respondents. That is why they filed the second affidavit in opposition where they alleged as follows: