MONORAMA SANYAL Vs. D I OF SCHOOLS NADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ application is directed against the appointment and approval of Smt. Gouri Goswami, (Respondent No. 3 for short) to the post of Head Mistress of Nasrapara hemnalini Girls' High School, (far brevity the said school hereafter ).

(2.) THE broad facts of the case are placed hereunder:-

(3.) PURSUANT to a letter dated June 13, 1982 issued by the then administrator of the said school, petitioner appeared before the said Selection Committee, in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (S. E.), nadia at Krishnanagar on July 7, 1982 for an interview for filling up the said vacancy in the post of Headmistress of the said school. The date of interview thus, fixed on July 7, 1982 was postponed and fresh letter was sent to the petitioner on July 26, 1982. 18. candidates including the petitioner were called for an interview on August 3, 1982. The Selection Committee held the interview of the candidates on August 3, 1982 at Krishnanagar in the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia and interviewed the candidates including the petitioner for the post of Headmistress. The selection Committee selected Respondent No. 3 then serving as Sub-Inspectress of Schools, Sadar I Circle, Nadia in the office of the District inspector of Schools (SE) Nadia for the aforesaid post. It is the claim of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 did root possess the minimum requisite qualifications for the said post of Headmistress of the said school. Evaluation sheet showing allotment of marks by the Selection Committee in terms of the administrative directions, in particular, paragraph 6 (a) and (b) thereof issued by the Director of Secondary Education, West Bengal was not made known to the petitioner and the allotted marks were given arbitrarily in favour of respondent no. 3. The then Administrator of the said school appointed respondent no. 3 to the post of Headmistress of the said, school and issued an appointment letter date August 5, 1982 to the said respondent no. 3 and sent proposal to the respondent no. 1 for approval of appointment of Headmistress in gross violation of the required norms to be followed in the matter of appointment to the post of Headmistress. No records of the proceedings of the Selection Committee are available in the school records, that the aforesaid decisions were taken by the then administrator in the secrecy of office and all the connected records were in his custody at Krishnanagar. The petitioner submitted a representation dated August 10, 1982 to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia to the following effect: