Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 163 (CAL)

Debjani Sarkar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-02-27

SOUMITRA PAL

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. In the writ petitions having Nos. 24757(W) of 2007 and W.P. No. 944(W) of 2008 the petitioners possessing certificates in three years Lady Brabourne Needle Work Tailoring Course awarded by the Directorate of School Education, have prayed for a declaration to declare the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 (in short 2007 Rules) as ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted that in the writ petition having no. W.P. No. 24723 (W) of 2007 by filing a supplementary affidavit prayers have been made for production of 2007 Rules published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary issued on 26th September, 2007 so that perusing the same it may be quashed and for quashing that part of the 2007 Rules whereby Certificate in Tailoring and Needle Work from any institution duly recognized by any UGC recognized University/ from any UGC recognized University has been prescribed to be an essential qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher in Work Education as it is arbitrary and unreasonable since it has no nexus with the object and also ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. In all the writ petitions prayers have been made for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the 8th Regional Level Selection Test which has since been held on 23rd December, 2007. The basic grounds of challenge in these writ petitions are with regard to the validity of the 2007 Rules since according to the petitioners it is ultra vires the Constitution of India as well as the provisions contained in the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Alternatively, it has been argued that even assuming 2007 Rules are not ultra vires, 2007 Rules cannot be applied in respect of advertisement published on 4th October, 2007 since the vacancies sought to be filled up by the said advertisement should be guided by the earlier rules. 3. Alternatively, it has been argued that even assuming 2007 Rules are not ultra vires, 2007 Rules cannot be applied in respect of advertisement published on 4th October, 2007 since the vacancies sought to be filled up by the said advertisement should be guided by the earlier rules. 3. So far as the answer to the issue whether the 2007 Rules are ultra vires the Constitution of India and 1997 Act, it is necessary to refer to the grounds in writ petition having No. 24757(W) of 2007 which are as under : "I. For that the actions of the authorities as impugned herein are neither bonafide nor lawful. II. For that the actions of the respondents forming subject of the instant writ application is ex facie bad and unenforceable in law. III. For that the 2007 Rules which have been framed have sought to create an illogical classification and it is gross violation of the petitioners rights to equal and fair treatment in the matter of employment, and the petitioners rights protected under Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution have been severally jeopardized. IV. For that there exists no rational basis for not including 3 year certificate in Needle Work from Lady Brabourne which till 25.09.2007 was a recognized qualification. V. For that a classification has been sought to be made having no rational nexus with the object ought to be achieved by such classification and the sole basis is arbitrary and capricious and entirely beyond jurisdiction. VI. For that the 2007 Rules have not been framed under Rule 7(1) of the said Rules which give the power to the Government to fix qualifications for the various posts of teachers, therefore, in other words the Government cannot arrogate unto itself a right which it does not have. VII. For that the petitioners have been informed that owing to their qualification which no longer is an essential one, they would not be called for appearing in the forthcoming 8th R.L.S.T. i.e. in other words no Admit Card would be issued in their favour and, therefore, unless this Hon'ble Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India come to the petitioners' rescue the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss, injury and prejudice. VIII. VIII. For that till 2006 3 years certificate in Needle Work from Lady Brabourne which is recognized by the Government was treated as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Work Education and by doing away with such essential qualification an uncertain future is looming large above the petitioners heads since the petitioners reasonably believed by pursuing such Government recognized course they would be able to appear in the selection test conducted by the Central Commission for appointment to the post of teachers. IX. For that by abruptly, arbitrarily and capriciously changing the law the petitioners have been left to grope in the dark and without any possibility of any chance to appear in the selection tet, the entire action is arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction and devoid of any basis and/or substance. X. For that the acts and actions of the respondents as impugned herein suffers from the vices of illegality, irrationality and/or procedural impropriety for which judicial interdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting things right. XI. For that the impugned actions of the respondents in arriving of the decision not to permit the petitioners to appear in the 8th R.L.S.T. scheduled to be held on 23.12.2007 is grossly violative of the petitioners right protected under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. XII. For that the actions of the respondents as impugned herein are otherwise bad and cannot sustain both in law as well as on facts." In the writ petition having W.P. No. 944 (W) of 2008 besides reiterating the grounds in W.P. No. 24757(W) of 2007, three additional grounds have taken which are extracted below: XIII. For that 2007 Rules do not even apply to them. Their vacancies, on a combined reading of the 2006 Rules and 2007 Rules were created on or after 1st January, 2007 and consequently since 2007 Rules did not see the light of the day as on 1st January, 2007, 2006 Rule apply to them. XIV. For that Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules in unequivocal terms have saved the acts done or caused to be done in accordance with the provisions of the earlier rules, thereby clearly implying that since the vacancies are created under 2006 Rules, they ought to be filled up under the provisions of the 2006 Rules. XV. XIV. For that Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules in unequivocal terms have saved the acts done or caused to be done in accordance with the provisions of the earlier rules, thereby clearly implying that since the vacancies are created under 2006 Rules, they ought to be filled up under the provisions of the 2006 Rules. XV. For that 2006 Rules cannot supersede the West Bengal School Service Commission Rules and therefore, in the absence of clear Rule making power, the rules are ipso facto illegal and suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction." 4. Section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 (for short "the Act') which empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, is extracted hereunder : 17.(1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters : (a) the terms and conditions of service of the Chairman and other members under clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 4; (b) the manner in which an inquiry is to be made for removal of the Chairman or any other member under section 5; (c) the terms and conditions of service of the Secretary under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 6; (d) the manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers under sub-section (i) section 8; (e) any other matter which may be, or is required to be, prescribed. 5. I find from the array of grounds in the writ petitions that though the validity of the 2007 Rules and the actions taken thereunder have been questioned, however, the validity of the enabling provisions in the Act, particularly, section 17 thereof, have not been impugned. Even the grounds in the writ petitions regarding the challenge to the 2007 Rules, in my view, are flimsy. Even the grounds in the writ petitions regarding the challenge to the 2007 Rules, in my view, are flimsy. In the absence of challenge to the provisions in the 1997 Act and in the absence of cogent and valid grounds regarding the challenge to the 2007 Rules, though elaborate arguments were made during hearing and judgements in support were cited, challenge to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 in W.P. No. 24757 (W) of 2007 and in W.P. No. 944(W) of 2008 fails. 6. In W.P. No. 24723 (W) of 2007, the petitioners possessing Lady Brabourne Needlework Diploma have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to treat them is eligible for the post of Assistant Teacher in Work Education and to allow them to appear in the selection test and thereafter to consider them for their empanelment. As noted in W.P. No. 24723 (W) of 2007 prayer has been made by filing a affidavit for quashing the rules and the notification regarding advertisement. In my view, challenge to the 2007 Rules on the basis of grounds in the supplementary affidavit is not tenable. Challenge, if at all, should have been by way of an amendment of the writ petition. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the law laid down in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited vs. Jessop and Company Limited, reported in 2003(4) Company Law Journal 333 (Cal), here it has been held as under : "33. All these documents were filed after filing of the writ petition and on the basis of these subsequent document and supplementary affidavits, an entirely new case was sought to be built up which was never put up in the pleadings. We shall deal all these points subsequently. At present the question is whether this kind of procedure adopted by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge for developing a new case by filing supplementary affidavit should be accepted or not. We are conscious that in writ jurisdiction, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to pleadings are not required to be strictly adhered to, but the basic principle of law of pleading has to be kept in view. The writ petition cannot be de hors the minimum pleading. We are conscious that in writ jurisdiction, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to pleadings are not required to be strictly adhered to, but the basic principle of law of pleading has to be kept in view. The writ petition cannot be de hors the minimum pleading. In the present case, as we have pointed out above that the entire case put up before the learned Single Judge was on the question whether JCL comes within the meaning of strategic sector or not. Prayers were also made to this effect, as reproduced above. But by way of supplementary affidavits, all these new pleadings were sought to be introduced, this mode cannot be countenanced. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the entire process of selection of the promoter in this disinvestment process then it was binding on the writ petitioners to amend the writ petition, and incorporate all these grounds. But a peculiar method was adopted by the writ petitioners to bring out a new case by filing supplementary affidavits and annexing documents from time to time, to make it impossible for the Court as well as for other parties to meet the case of the writ petitioners. We cannot approve of this kind of practice and it has to be disapproved in no uncertain terms. We can appreciate that subsequent events after filing of the writ petition, has taken place; and if the parties to the writ petition want to bring them on record, these new developments, then courts in its liberal approach take into consideration these subsequent events; but that should be done by amending the writ petition and not by filing successive supplementary affidavit. In the present case, all limits have been crossed and an entirely new case has been sought to be developed by the writ petitioners; and strangely enough, the learned Single Judge countenanced the same despite the fact that he has already held the main case against the writ petitioners that JCL does not fall in the 'strategic sector'. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the submissions of Mr. Kapoor deserves to be accepted that new case which has been sought to be developed by the writ petitioners by inserting various documents through affidavits cannot be countenanced; and we strongly disapprove this approach." 7. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the submissions of Mr. Kapoor deserves to be accepted that new case which has been sought to be developed by the writ petitioners by inserting various documents through affidavits cannot be countenanced; and we strongly disapprove this approach." 7. It appears in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited (supra) that the practice of bringing on record the subsequent events by filing supplementary affidavit after filing of the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and thus bringing out a new case was disapproved by the Division Bench. The law is it should be done by amending the writ petition. Therefore, challenge to the 2007 Rules by filing a supplementary affidavit cannot be sustained. Further, I find there is no challenge to the enabling provisions under the 1997 Act. Hence, as there is no challenge to the provisions contained in the 2007 Rules the challenge to the 2007 Rules fails. 8. The only other issue is whether vacancies notified by the advertisement published on 4th October, 2007 and the recruitment process should be guided by the 2007 Rules or by the earlier rules. 9. It is pertinent to note that 2007, Rules were notified in the Kolkata Gazette on 26th September, 2007 and the opening words in the said notification are as under : “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2), read with sub-section (1) of section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 (West Ben. Act IV of 1997) and in supersession of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules regulating the manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to the post of Teachers, namely: ...” 10. As evident in exercise of the power conferred under clause (d) of sub-Section (2) read with sub-section a (1) of section 17 of the 1997 Act. superseding the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers), Rules, 2006 (in short 2006 Rules'), 2007 Rules were made for regulating the manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to, the posts of Teachers. 11. superseding the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers), Rules, 2006 (in short 2006 Rules'), 2007 Rules were made for regulating the manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to, the posts of Teachers. 11. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that as the vacancies, on a combined reading of 2006 Rules and 2007 Rules, were created on or after 1st January, 2007 and since 2007 Rules did not see the light of the day on 1st January, 2007, 2006 rules are applicable. Submission has been advanced that Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules in unequivocal terms has saved the acts done or caused to be done in accordance with the provisions of the earlier rules. It implies that since the vacancies were created under 2006 Rules, those should be filled up by the provisions of 2006 Rules. 12. In order to appreciate the issue it is appropriate to refer to the relevant rules of 2007 Rules. Relevant portion of Rule 8 of the 2007 Rules is as under : "8. Information regarding vacancies.-(1) The District Inspectors of Schools (Secondary Education) shall prepare a report regarding the number of vacancies in approved posts, which exists or is expected to occur within the 1st day of January next ensuing and shall furnish the same to the concerned Regional Commission. (2) On receipt of report under sub-rule (1) with respect to the post of Assistant Teachers, every Regional Commission shall send the compiled vacancy report subject-wise, medium-wise, category-wise and gender-wise to the Central Commission in two stages; (a) first within the last date of the month immediately preceding the date of publication of the advertisement inviting application; and (b) finally within the 1st day of January next ensuing or within the last date of the month immediately preceding the month in which the result of the written examination would be published, whichever is earlier. 13. Relevant portion of Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules is as under : "9. Advertisement.-(1) The Central Commission shall, on receipt of the report of vacancies under Rule 8, issue an advertisement through newspapers in the State in English, Bengali or in any other languages, if necessary, and also through the website of the Commission. 13. Relevant portion of Rule 9 of the 2007 Rules is as under : "9. Advertisement.-(1) The Central Commission shall, on receipt of the report of vacancies under Rule 8, issue an advertisement through newspapers in the State in English, Bengali or in any other languages, if necessary, and also through the website of the Commission. (2) Such advertisement shall be issued specifying the vacancies, qualifications, age as on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement and other necessary information relating to such posts, details of which may be obtained through the website of the Commission and from the Offices of Central Commission and the concerned Regional Commissions." Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules is as under : "Savings.-(1) Nothing in these rules shall affect reservation, relaxation of age limit and other concessions required to be provided for Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the State Government from time to time in this regard. (2) Nothing in these rules shall affect any act done or cause to be done in accordance with the provisions of the earlier rules made or notifications or orders issued under the Act." 14. In this context it is necessary to refer to Rules 8 and 9 of the 2006 Rules which are extracted as under : "8. Information regarding vacancies.-(1) The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) shall prepare a report regarding the number of vacancies in approved posts of teachers, which exists or is expected to occur within the 1st day of January next ensuing, and shall furnish the same to the concerned Regional Commission.' (2) Every Regional Commission shall, on receipt of such vacancies reported under sub-rule (1), furnish a compiled report regarding the number of vacancies of posts to the Central Commission. 9. Advertisement.-The Central Commission shall, on receipt of such vacancies reported under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, notify such vacancies through website of the Commission and/or in newspapers in the State in English, Bengali or in any other languages, if necessary, specifying the qualifications, age as on the 1st day of January of the year of advertisement, and other necessary information relating to such posts, details of which may be obtained through the website of the Central Commission as also from the offices of Central Commission and the concerned Regional Commissions." 15. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that as vacancies on a combined reading of 2006 and 2007 Rules, were created on 1st January, 2007 when 2007 Rules did not come into picture, 2006 Rules apply and since under 2006 Rules, persons having diploma in Lady Brabourne Needlework were eligible, the petitioners are sligible. In my view, the argument is without any force from a reading of Rule 8 of 2006 Rules, that is, Information regarding vacancies, it is obvious that the District Inspectors of Schools (Secondary Education) were empowered to prepare an advance report regarding the projected vacancies which is evident from the words exists or is expected to occur". Preparation of a report under Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules under no stretch of imagination can mean that the rights of the petitioners got crystallized on that day. There is no question of any accrued rights under the 2006 Rules. Although by notification dated 26th September, 2007, 2006 Rules stood superseded, since holding written examination, consideration of academic score and personality test which go into the preparation of the merit list is a lengthy exercise, it is those exercises already done under the 2006 Rules which are protected under Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules. That a candidate does not have an accrued right and selection has to be in terms of the advertisement has to be in terms of the advertisement has been made clear by the law laid down in N.T. Bevin Katti vs. Karnataka PSC reported in 1990(3) SCC 157 , wherein it has been held as under : "There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however, he has no absolute right in the matter....." (Emphasis supplied) (Paragraph 11) 16. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Chander Sekhar & Anr. reported in 1997(4) SCC 18 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under : "The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it...." (paragraph 6). 17. Therefore, since right of the applicant crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, the argument that the rights accrued under 2006 Rules have been saved under Rule 22 of the 2007 Rules is not tenable. 18. Another point while deciding the second issue calls for consideration is whether the petitioners having Lady Braboume Needlework Diploma can be treated to be eligible for the post of Assistant Teachers in Work Education. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners as diploma was granted by the Directorate of School Education after they had pursued a syllabus approved by the Education Directorate, they are eligible. Hence as has been submitted, they should be treated at par with the diploma holders of Work Education granted by the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission. In my view, bringing a new criteria by including work education as an essential qualification is purely a policy decision which cannot be the subject-matter of judicial scrutiny. Hence as has been submitted, they should be treated at par with the diploma holders of Work Education granted by the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission. In my view, bringing a new criteria by including work education as an essential qualification is purely a policy decision which cannot be the subject-matter of judicial scrutiny. In this regard it is necessary to refer to the law laid down in Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai & Ors., reported in 2008(3) SCC 432 , wherein, while allowing the appeals, it has been held as under : "14. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said circular. He docs not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. The DEd Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the Circular dated 11-8-1997. This is a policy decision of the U.P. Government and it is well settled that the Court cannot interfere with policy decision of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or Constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a junior basic school in U.P. 15. Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it. 19. Similarly in the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras vs. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2131 it has been held that ".....It is well-settled legal position that it is the legal or executive policy of the Government to create a post or to prescribe the qualifications for the post. The Court or Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The impugned direction, therefore, is clearly illegal." (Paragraph 4) 20. The Court or Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The impugned direction, therefore, is clearly illegal." (Paragraph 4) 20. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Lata Arun, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2642 , while allowing the appeal held that "From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted is equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority." (Paragraph 12) 21. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs. Chairman, UPSC & Ors., reported in 2006(8) SCC 42 , wherein it has been held that ‘The Statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision therefor". (Paragraph 25) 22. Therefore, an authority has the power to prescribe qualification and Courts cannot decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. 23. It is to be noted that the petitioners have questioned the change in qualification. As submitted on behalf of the respondents change in the qualification by seeking applications from the applicants having degree in Work Education from an institution recognized by the University Grants Commission has been brought about by the experts for attracting better talent. Change in the policy in such circumstances cannot be questioned. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the judgement by the Apex Court in Col. A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1545 wherein it has been held that "A policy once formulated is not good for ever; it is perfectly within the competence of the Union of India to change it, rechange it, adjust it and readjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances and imperatives of national considerations." 24. Similar view has been expressed in P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors., reported in 2003(2) SCC 632. 25. Similar view has been expressed in P.U. Joshi & Ors. vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors., reported in 2003(2) SCC 632. 25. Therefore, since the petitioners did not have any certificate in Tailoring and needle work (at least 2-year course) from any Institution duly recognized by any UGC recognized University or from any UGC recognized University or degree or diploma in the "Work Education" curriculum awarded by any University or any Department of the State Government, they are not eligible to be considered for the posts concerned. The argument that tailoring and needlework course was a part of the Work Education under the Memo dated 2nd December, 1988 issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, cannot be accepted as the respondent authorities have sought for applications from the applicants having degree or diploma in "Work Education" and not diploma in Tailoring and Needlework which was a part of the Work Education. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 24723 (W) of 2007, fails. 26. An argument was made that the "manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to the post of Teachers" under section 8 or under section 17(2)(d) of the Act cannot mean prescribing qualifications regarding selection of persons for appointment to the post, of teachers. "Scope" means "The intention or tendency of a law" (The shorter Oxford English Dictionary), Prescribing qualifications for the post of teachers is aimed at the desired intention-the selection of persons for appointment to such post. Therefore, that argument too fails. 27. It is to be noted that though elaborate arguments were made regarding the challenge to the vires of the Rules, its applicability and the scope and ambit of 1997 Act, I find that either there are no formal pleadings or pleadings are insufficient. Therefore, the writ applications fail and are dismissed. Interim orders passed on 14th January, 2008 are vacated. 28. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for stay of the operation of the judgment and order. 29. Prayer is considered and refused. 30. There will be no order as to costs. 31. Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis. Soumitra Pal, J.: Writ petition dismissed.