DIPANNITA PAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to the filing of present writ application are that the petitioner was selected by the trustees of the trust dated 28.6.92 (Copy of the trust deed is annexure 'A' to the writ petition) whereby provision has been made for admission to some students of Subarna Banik Parentage in the Carmichel Medical College. By the said trust, the trustees three in number have been conferred the power to make the selection and nominate candidates in M.B.B.S. course in the said Medical College. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been so selected by the trustees and intimation of her such selection was made by a letter dated 31.8.98 addressed to the Principal of the said College (annexure 'E' to the writ petition). However, one of the trustees R.N. Mallick, respondent No. 6 herein appears to have addressed a letter to the Principal of the College in question dated 28.8.98 requesting the Principal not to allow the vacant seat to anybody as the nominee of the trust until he (R.N. Mallick) informed the final selection of the candidate. By a letter dated 4.9.98 addressed to the Principal the two remaining trustees i.e. the respondents No. 7 and 8 informed the Principal or the selection of the petitioner herein but the Principal refused to admit the petitioner because of the communication dated 28.8.98 of Shri R. N. Mallick. The petitioner caused a demand of justice notice issued to all the respondents and thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking inter alia, the following reliefs;

(2.) The trustees i.e. the respondent No.6, R. N. Mallick as also the remaining two trustees viz., the respondent Nos.7 and 8 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, as also the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. The affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.7 and 8 to the main affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6. The writ petitioner also filed affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondent No.6.

(3.) Supplementary affidavit with the leave of court was filed by the respondent No.6.