Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 201 (CAL)

Basanti Das v. State of W. B.

2001-04-10

Ashim Kumar Banerjee

body2001
JUDGMENT Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. The writ petitioner was selected by the Madrasha after holding an interview by the concerned Madrasha. However, such selection of the writ petitioner was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that there has been a violation of the recruitment rules. According to the Labour Directorate guidelines for the concerned post, the Employment Exchange should have sent 20 names. In the instant case by mistake the Employment Exchange sent 13 names. However, on being pointed out by the Madrasha Authority, the Employment Exchange sent the subsequent list of 7 names to complete the list of 20 candidates. After holding interview of the said 20 candidates, the writ petitioner was selected and the approval was asked for from the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools refused to approve the said panel and observed that the list of subsequent names should not have been asked for by the Madrasha and it is in effect of the 2nd list which is not permitted in terms of the recruitment rules. The writ petitioner has challenged such decision of the District Inspector of Schools by way of a writ petition. The said writ petition was heard by Shyamal Kr. Sen- J. (as His Lordship then was) wherein His' Lordship by a judgment and order dt. 11th September, 1997 quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools and the question for approval was sent for consideration to the Director of School Education. In the said judgment and order His Lordship has observed 'that the contention of the writ petitioner appears to be correct.' Considering the said facts His Lordship quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools. The Director of School Education upon hearing passed a reasoned order affirming the order of the District Inspector of Schools on the same ground which was rejected by His Lordship by order dt. 11th September, 1997. Ld. Advocate appearing for the State Authority has drawn my attention to the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules wherein it has been provided that no 2nd list should be obtained from the Employment Exchange. Relying on the said provisions, the ld. Advocate for the State submits that the subsequent list containing seven names was in effect of the 2nd list and is prohibited in the Recruitment Rules. Relying on the said provisions, the ld. Advocate for the State submits that the subsequent list containing seven names was in effect of the 2nd list and is prohibited in the Recruitment Rules. He also submits that the guide-lines issued by the Labour Department, Govt. of W.B. cannot have any over-riding effect to the Recruitment Rules. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to a Single Bench decision of this Court in C.O. 11531(W) of1996 (Sukumar Banerjee vs. State of W.B.) wherein the self-same issue has been decided against the State/respondent. I have carefully gone to the said judgment and order I am in agreement with the decision of the said Single Bench. 3. The subsequent list containing 7 names, in my view, is not a 2nd list which is prohibited in the recruitment rules. It was incumbent upon the Employment Exchange to send 20 names as per the Labour Directorate guidelines. It was a patent mistake on the part of the Employment Exchange to send 13 names. However, the Employment Exchange corrected such mistake by sending the subsequent 7 names, on being pointed out by the Madrasha Authority. The subsequent list was sent much prior to the interview and the interview was held on the basis of the composite list of 20 candidates. So it is one and single list and the selection process has thereby not violated any of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. 4. The Director of School Education, was asked by this Court to decide the issue by the judgment and order dt. 11th September, 1997. It is unfortunate that the Director of School Education has totally misconstrued the purport and intent of such judgment and order while affirming the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. Since the reasoning of the District Inspector of Schools has once been rejected by the Court, the Director of School Education should not have relied upon such reasoning once again and I have no hesitation to hold that the Director of School Education while deciding the issue has violated the said order dt. 11th September, 1997. In my view the Director of School Education should have disposed of the representation in true spirit of the said judgment and order dt. 11th September, 1997 by which he was asked to consider the issue. 5. 11th September, 1997. In my view the Director of School Education should have disposed of the representation in true spirit of the said judgment and order dt. 11th September, 1997 by which he was asked to consider the issue. 5. In any event since I find that there is no violation of the Recruitment Rules there is no reason why the panel sent by the Madrasha should not be approved. Hence I quash the order of the Director of School Education appearing at page 28 of the writ petition and I direct the respondent authority to approve the panel forthwith and accord necessary approval therein. 6. I am told by the ld. Advocate for the petitioner that by this time the writ petitioner has crossed the age limit. However, the said fact is not at all relevant as the panel was sent for approval at the time when he was within the age limit. 7. The writ petition is thus disposed of. 8. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied on usual undertakings. Writ petition disposed of.