Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 681 (CAL)

Jhuma Mallick v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-09-06

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2007
Judgment :- (1.) THE petitioner is questioning the action of the authorities who prepared a list on which the twelfth and thirteenth respondents were put in the first and second positions respectively and she was put in the third position. (2.) THE selection committee that prepared the original list put the petitioner in the first position, and the list accompanied by the proceedings of the selection was forwarded to the District Project Officer, SSA, Howrah for approval. It is at that stage that the list prepared by the selection committee was modified and the petitioner was put in the third position. (3.) BY order dated April 21 st, 2006 the writ petition was admitted and liberty was given to the respondents to file opposition. The authorities have chosen not to file any opposition. Counsel for the respondents submit that the selection committee did not give proper marks to the candidates on the basis of their academic qualifications. There is nothing to show that on such ground that authority who modified the list prepared by the selection committee decided to modify it to the petitioners detriment and behind her back. There is nothing to show either that the authority who modified the list prepared by the selection committee was empowered by the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines to modify it. It seems to me that the authority took the matter very casually. (4.) ON these facts, I am unable to accept the contention of Counsel for the thirteenth respondent that the petitioner was not a better candidate. If she was not a better candidate, then steps should have been taken by the authorities in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines either for cancelling the list or for remitting it to the selection committee for preparing a fresh list in accordance with law. It is on record that the members of the selection committee strongly objected to the modification of the list prepared by them according to the guidelines. They submitted their written objection dated March 2nd, 2006, but nothing could move the authority who took the unusual step to modify the list, apparently, without disclosing any reason or authority. In my view, the modified list should be quashed and the district project officer should be directed to take necessary steps for preparation of an appropriate list, if the list sent for approval is not fit for approval. In my view, the modified list should be quashed and the district project officer should be directed to take necessary steps for preparation of an appropriate list, if the list sent for approval is not fit for approval. (5.) FOR these reasons, I allow this writ petition and set aside the modified list showing the petitioner in third position and the twelfth and thirteenth respondents in the first and second positions respectively. The district project officer shall consider the question of approval of the list sent by the institute, and if he finds that the list is not fit for approval, then he shall give necessary directions to the institute for preparation of a fresh list in accordance with law. The exercise shall be carried out and completed by the District Project Officer within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. On account of costs the District Project Officer, the second respondent, shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,000. The amount shall be paid within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. (6.) URGENT certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.