Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 32 (CAL)

BISWANATH DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2003-01-29

PRATAP KUMAR RAY

body2003
P. K. RAY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) BY the judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 prayer (a) of this writ application was rejected but the prayers (b), (c) and (d) were kept open for decision by the Larger Bench subject to the decision of the reference as made by me disagreeing with the view of G. R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) passed in the case of Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. as decided on 11th February, 1994 being an unreported decision whereby G. R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) held that while considering approval issue of a panel, the District Inspector of Schools concerned had no jurisdiction to disapprove. It has been held further by G. R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had the power to approve the panel and in the event of disapproval, the same would be referred to the Director of School Education, West Bengal. Such view of G. R. Bhattacharya, J. (as His Lordship then was) was considered as not correct view by this Court and this Court held in the said judgment that the District Inspector of Schools concerned got the power to approve as well as dis-approve any panel and to pass any decision, modifying and/or rectifying the panel. However, following the judicial discipline, this Court accordingly referred the matter for decision by the Larger Bench about the power and jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned when a panel is referred for his decision by the Managing Committee of the School in terms of the Recruitment Rules issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. The Division Bench of this Court comprising of Ashok Kumar Mathur, CJ. and Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. By the judgment dated 8th October, 2002 answered the reference by holding that the view as stated by me in the judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 regarding jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned to dis-approve, to modify and/or to rectify the panel was right. and Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. By the judgment dated 8th October, 2002 answered the reference by holding that the view as stated by me in the judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 regarding jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools concerned to dis-approve, to modify and/or to rectify the panel was right. The Division Bench accordingly held in answering to the reference in the following terms:-THEREFORE, we answer the first question framed by the learned single Judge that the District Inspector of Schools has power of approving or not approving the panel forwarded to it by the Managing Committee as the approval includes disapproval of the panel also. The view taken by the learned single Judge in the Birendra Pratap Singh's case (supra) by justice Bhattacharya does not lay down the correct law. ( 3 ) THE Division Bench further held in answering the reference that the decision of the District Inspector of Schools concerned dated 28th March, 1995 was bad in law whereby the said authority approved the panel though there was no rectification and/or modification of the defects as were directed to be cured by the letters dated 25th September, 1992, 17th March, 1993 and 16th March, 1994. Further in answering to the question No. 3 as referred by me, the Division Bench held that the panel as prepared after cancelling the earlier one by holding fresh interview of the sponsored candidates is correct and valid. After holding that the Division Bench again has referred the matter back for a decision in the light of the findings confirming the earlier views of this Court about the power of the District Inspector of Schools concerned. Copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8th October, 2002 was supplied to all the learned advocates for effective assistance in terms of my order dated 21st January, 2003. The learned advocate for the petitioner has frankly stated that he has nothing to submit further in view of the answer of reference of the Division Bench. Copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8th October, 2002 was supplied to all the learned advocates for effective assistance in terms of my order dated 21st January, 2003. The learned advocate for the petitioner has frankly stated that he has nothing to submit further in view of the answer of reference of the Division Bench. Having regard to such position, now I have to decide the prayers (b), (c) and (d) of the writ application, which was kept pending for decision, the prayers (b), (c) and (d) of the writ application read thus:- (B)a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to hold any interview for appointment to the post of clerk in Taherpur Girls' High School, P. O. Taherpur, District- Nadia on the basis of the impugned letters of Interview being annexure 'f' and 'g' to this petition and to rescind, revoke, cancel and withdraws the same; (C)a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents not to give any effect and/or further effect to the impugned letters of interview, being annexure 'f' and 'g' to this application and not to hold any interview for preparation of panel for the appointment of clerk in Taherpur Girls' High School, P. O. Taherpur, District-Nadia. (D)a writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records relating to the case so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the impugned orders and/or by passing appropriate orders and directions. ( 4 ) BY my judgment dated 2nd March, 2001 whereby I held that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had the power to dis-approve, rectify and/or modify the panel as would be sent by the Managing Committee of the School, since has been confirmed by the Larger Bench in terms of the reference by its judgment dated 8th October, 2002, there is nothing for further adjudication of the prayers (b), (c) and (d ). In view of the legal point as settled that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had the power to rectify, modify, cancel and/or to pass any decision including the direction to hold fresh interview has been answered in affirmative not only by this Court but also by the Larger Bench when this was referred to for a decision, the order for holding fresh interview by cancelling the earlier panel wherein the added parts stood first cannot be said as illegal. Similarly, prayer (c) also is rejected as the Court has already held that the fresh interview on cancelling earlier panel was right. Prayer (d) also is accordingly rejected. ( 5 ) HENCE, having regard to the earlier judgment passed by me on 2nd March, 2001 read with the judgment of the Larger Bench dated 8th October, 2002 there is no merit in the writ application and accordingly the entire writ application stands dismissed on merit. The fresh interview has held is declared as valid and legal and the panel as prepared wherein the added respondent stood first now is required to be given effect to. The Managing Committee of the School is directed to send the panel within a week from this date to the concerned District Inspector of Schools, who within a week thereafter from the date of receipt of the panel will take a decision in terms of the Recruitment Rules for necessary approval and will send immediately his decision to the School Authority within a week from the date of taking such decision. The Managing Committee of the School is directed to issue appointment letter in terms of the approved panel within three days from the date of receipt of the panel from the office of the District Inspector of Schools concerned and in the event it appears that the panel wherein added respondent stood first is approved, appointment letter to be issued to the added respondent within that period. ( 6 ) THE writ application accordingly stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously. Application dismissed