Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 97 (CAL)

SAMIRAN CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2006-02-20

SOUMITRA PAL

body2006
Before Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal ( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows: -Let supplementary affidavit and affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for several reliefs. The relevant prayer is as under: - " (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents and servants to forbear from approving the panel prepared for the post of Class-IV staff in the Baradongal Ramanath Institution and from filling up the said post to the exclusion of the petitioner and further commanding the respondents, their agents and servants to hold fresh interview for the post of Class-IV staff in the Baradongal Ramanath institution through a properly constituted Selection Committee forthwith. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for an interim order which is as under: - " (e) Ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from approving the panel prepared for the post of class-IV staff in the Baradongal Ramanath Institution from filling up the said post to the exclusion of the petitioner and further directing the respondents, their agents and servants to hold fresh interview for the post of Class-IV staff in the Baradongal Ramanath Institution through a properly constituted Selection Committee forthwith. " ( 4 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that panel prepared by the selection Committee after holding interview on 25th December, 2005, was not valid since the Panchayet nominee could not appear as the notice intimating the date of interview was served upon him on 26th December, 2005. Under the relevant rules the Selection Committed should consist of a person nominated by the Panchayet Samity. In this regard, attention was drawn to Paragraph-6 of the writ petition. In the absence of the said nominee the Selection Committee was not validly constituted and, thus, the panel prepared by the said Committee should be quashed and directions should be issued to hold interview afresh. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ishwar chandra v. Satyanarain Sinha and Ors. reported in AIR 1972 SC 1812 , and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in District Inspector of schools, Murshidabad and Ors. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ishwar chandra v. Satyanarain Sinha and Ors. reported in AIR 1972 SC 1812 , and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in District Inspector of schools, Murshidabad and Ors. v. Samsul Huda and Ors. , reported in 1987 (2) CLJ 144, the action of the respondent-school authorities is just and proper. Referring to Guideline No. 11 of the Guidelines for Recruitment of Part-time Assistant teachers of Non-Recognised Non-Government Higher Secondary Schools/ madrasah it was submitted that the interview held was valid since 3 out of 5 members were present. ( 6 ) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. ( 7 ) IN my view, considering the fact the Panchayat nominee could not turn up, since the notice intimating the date of interview was served a day after the interview, the principles laid down in the judgments cited on behalf of School authorities are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 8 ) IN the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra) the Apex Court had noted - "it is also not denied that the meeting held by two of the three members on the 4th april, 1970 was legal because sufficient notice was given to all the three members" (Paragraph-5 ). (Emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) IN the case of District Inspector of Schools (supra) it was held that -"there may be occasions when one or two of the members of the Selection committee, for some reason or other, despite notice being served on such members may fail to appear on the date of the interview, but simply on such score of absence of such members the interview, if taken by 50% or more members of the Selection Committee, should not be held invalid" (Paragraph-7 ). ( Emphasis supplied) Thus, unlike the case in hand, from the facts in. the judgments cited, it appears Courts had the occasion to consider situations where notices were served. ( 10 ) FURTHER, guidelines referred to are not applicable since instant case is regarding interview of Class-IV staff whereas the said guidelines are for the recruitment of Part-time Assistant Teachers. ( 11 ) FROM the facts it appears service was effected on 26th December, 2005 a day after the interview. ( 10 ) FURTHER, guidelines referred to are not applicable since instant case is regarding interview of Class-IV staff whereas the said guidelines are for the recruitment of Part-time Assistant Teachers. ( 11 ) FROM the facts it appears service was effected on 26th December, 2005 a day after the interview. Since notice was served a day after, in my view, sufficient notice was not served and, therefore, the question regarding the participation of the Panchayat nominee, a member of the Selection Committee, does not arise at all. The question of participation can arise only after notice is served. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since representation has been filed, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the district Inspector of Schools (SE), Hooghly, the respondent No. 3, to dispose of the representation dated 25th December, 2005 by 3rd March, 2006 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and, thereafter, shall pass a reasoned order within a period of three days from the date of hearing. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the parties within a period of two days from the date of passing such order. At the time of hearing parties shall be at liberty to produce documents in support of their respective contentions and the respondent No. 3 in his reasoned order shall deal with the same. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the facts let there be an order of status quo as on date regarding the approval of the panel till 11th March, 2006. ( 14 ) I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and ail points are left open to be decided by the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. ( 15 ) SINCE, the respondents were not called upon to file affidavit controverting the allegations made in the writ petition, the allegations are deemed to have been denied by them. ( 16 ) THE learned Advocate on record for the petitioner is directed to communicate the gist of this order to the respondents including the respondent no. 3 by tomorrow. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties on priority basis.