Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 618 (CAL)

Paramananda Ghosh v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-06-14

J.K.BISWAS

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 16, 2004 is questioning the decision of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura dated May 28, 2004, Annexure P7 at p.26. 2. THE petitioner participated in a selection process initiated by Dhulai R.K.M. Mrinmoyee Vidyamandir in Gopikantapur of the district Bankura for appointing a clerk in the institute. In the process he took the typing test, and according to him on typing test he obtained 5 marks. He alleged that in the score sheets maintained by each member of the selection committee and also in the final score sheet prepared and signed by the members of the selection committee it was wrongly shown that on typing test he obtained only 2. He moved this court and this court directed the district inspector of schools to decide the matter. Accordingly the district inspector of schools has given the impugned decision. The district inspector of schools has held that the petitioner failed to submit any acceptable evidence in proof of his case that though on typing test he actually obtained 5 out of 5 full marks, in the score sheets maintained by each member of the selection committee and then in the final score sheet prepared and signed by the members of the selection committee it was wrongly shown that on typing test he obtained only 2 out of 5 full marks. 3. THE district inspector of schools concluded that the marks shown in the score sheets maintained by each member of the selection committee and in the final score sheet prepared and signed by the members of the selection committee were correctly recorded, and these findings fact the district inspector of schools recorded on the basis of the original papers submitted to him by the managing committee of the institute while applying for approval of the panel. 4. THE same original records were produced in this court and they were kept in the custody of the registrar general. THE sealed envelope containing the records has been opened and I have examined the original records which clearly reveal that on typing test the petitioner obtained only 2. Counsel submits that the district inspector of schools did not consider the worth of the document at p.20. THE sealed envelope containing the records has been opened and I have examined the original records which clearly reveal that on typing test the petitioner obtained only 2. Counsel submits that the district inspector of schools did not consider the worth of the document at p.20. According to the petitioner the document at p.20 of the petition is a copy of the original product of his typing test, made from another copy that had been secretly supplied to him by someone of the institute having access to the original selection records. According to counsel for the institute and the private respondent the document at p.20 produced for the first time with the petition is evidently a fabricated document. From the original records I find that the typing test products of the candidates all were signed by the teacher-in-charge of the institute on May 20, 2001, and that on none of them any seal of the institute was impressed. 5. THE document at p.20 does not bear any signature of the teacher-in-charge. On the contrary it simply bears an impression of a seal of the institute. It does not tally with the one that forms part of the original records produced by the institute. It is also to be noted that it has been produced for the first time with the petition. Its genuineness has been questioned. Hence there is no reason to make it a basis to interfere with the impugned decision. 6. FOR these reasons, the petition is dismissed. Original records taken out from the sealed envelope produced by the registrar general are hereby returned to counsel for the institute. No costs.