Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 945 (CAL)

Ujjal Ray Alias Ujjal Roy v. Lal Mohan Ghosh

2010-08-09

B.BHATTACHARYA, J.N.PATEL

body2010
JUDGMENT J.N. Patel, C.J. 1. THE appellant/applicant on seeking leave has filed this appeal taking exception to the Order dated 23rd August, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13762(w) of 2009 filed by respondent No. 1, original writ petitioner, Lal Mohan Ghosh wherein the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition directed the School Authority to recast the panel to recruit staff for the post of Peon (Group D) by deleting the name of the appellant/applicant, Ujjal Roy and further observed that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly upon receipt of the recast panel shall be at liberty to consider the issue of approval strictly in accordance with law and on such approval being granted by the School Authority, appointment be given to the first empanelled candidate of the recast panel which shall abide by the result of W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 filed by the appellant/applicant. 2. IT appears from the facts of the case that the school, Pratap Nagar Ramani Mohan Vidaya Niketan, Hooghly called for names of suitable candidates from the Employment Exchange for filling up the post of Peon (Group D). The names of candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The writ petitioner, Lal Mohan Ghosh was one of the candidates who was issued a call letter dated 15.10.2008 directing him to appear before the interview for the post of Peon (Group D) dated 1.11.2008. The appellant/applicant, Ujjal Roy's name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, he filed writ application no. 24805 of 2007 seeking directions against the respondent school authority, through their Secretary, Selection Committee and the Headmaster. The said writ petition was disposed of by Order dated 6th December, 2007 directing the concerned respondent authorities to permit him to appear at the interview for filling up the post of Peon (Group D) staff of the said School on December 9, 2007 or on any reschedule date, if the applicant was found otherwise eligible. 3. IT is the case of the appellant/applicant that pursuant to the orders of the Court, he appeared at the interview and obtained highest marks and, therefore, the panel was prepared and the appellant/applicant's name came to be placed at the first position of the said panel. 3. IT is the case of the appellant/applicant that pursuant to the orders of the Court, he appeared at the interview and obtained highest marks and, therefore, the panel was prepared and the appellant/applicant's name came to be placed at the first position of the said panel. As the School Authorities did not process the matter, the appellant/applicant moved an application being CAN No. 1087 of 2009 and by Order dated February 24, 2009, the Court therein directed respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the panel expeditiously preferably within 30 working days from the date of communication of the order. 4. IN the mean time, Lal Mohan Ghosh, respondent no. 1 original writ petitioner, filed the writ application being W.P. No. 30018(w) of 2008 challenging the selection of the appellant/applicant, Ujjal Roy. The said writ application came to be disposed of by Order dated March 7, 2009 by directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly to take a decision in the matter of panel by assigning reasons and to communicate the same to all concerned. It was further observed that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly may hear the parties, if necessary, including the writ petitioner and the private respondent no. 9 in the said petition filed by the appellant/applicant. Pursuant to the Order dated 17th March, 2009 in W.P. No. 30018(w) of 2008, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly passed an order dated July 3, 2009 inter alia holding that the credentials of the first empanelled candidate that is the appellant/applicant herein are not valid as such the said panel was not approved. Therefore, the appellant/applicant being aggrieved by the said Order dated July 3, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, filed a writ application being W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 challenging the order by impleading Sri Lal Mohan Ghosh as respondent no. 8 which is pending in this court. 5. THE said Lal Mohan Ghosh also filed a writ application being W.P. No. 13762 (w) of 2009 challenging inaction of the respondent no. 3 therein in recasting the panel and for approval of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly who passed the order on July 3, 2009 allegedly holding that the credentials of the appellant/applicant are not valid. In this writ petition, Lal Mohan Ghosh did not implead the appellant/applicant as the party respondent. 3 therein in recasting the panel and for approval of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly who passed the order on July 3, 2009 allegedly holding that the credentials of the appellant/applicant are not valid. In this writ petition, Lal Mohan Ghosh did not implead the appellant/applicant as the party respondent. This writ petition came to be disposed of by the impugned order dated August 3, 2009 inter alia directing the School Authority to recast the panel prepared for recruitment to the post of Peon (Group D) by deleting the name of Ujjal Roy from the said panel which is the subject matter of challenge. 6. WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the records and various orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the parties, in respect of the subject matter. It can be seen that only after this court by its order dated March 17, 2009 in W.P. No. 30018(w) of 2008, directed the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly to take a decision in the matter of approval of the panel by assigning reasons and the case of the appellant/applicant came to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly it was found that the testimonials submitted by the appellant/applicant in support of his educational qualification were not found to be genuine. The respondent District Inspector of Schools after examining the records of the school authority came to a finding that it is clear from the records that Sri Ujjal Roy who was admitted to class VI in Pratap Nagar Ramanimohan Vidya Niketan on 10.5.97 and Sri Ujjal Roy who left the said school on 2.5.2001, are not same and identical person. Because the address of Sri Ujjal Roy, the private respondent has been written as Pratapnagore instead of Dakshin Rasulpur in Result Book of Pratap Nagar Ramanimohan Vidya Niketan and in some places in the result book, the father's name of Sri Ujjal Roy was mentioned as Sanat instead of Santi. It was observed that in view of the facts and evidence of all the records, it can be concluded that the credentials of the first empanelled candidate namely Sri Ujjal Roy are not valid and so the panel under consideration cannot be approved. Therefore, the respondent school authority could not appoint the appellant/applicant for want of approval. It was observed that in view of the facts and evidence of all the records, it can be concluded that the credentials of the first empanelled candidate namely Sri Ujjal Roy are not valid and so the panel under consideration cannot be approved. Therefore, the respondent school authority could not appoint the appellant/applicant for want of approval. Thereafter, the order dated July 3, 2009 of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly has been challenged by the appellant/applicant in W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 before this Court. In the mean time, Lal Mohan Ghosh has also approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 13726 (w) of 2009 seeking directions against the School authority to recast the panel prepared for recruitment to the post of Peon (Group D) by deleting the name of Sri Ujjal Roy and for seeking this approval and appointment to the first empanelled candidate of the recast panel which led to the passing of the impugned order. 7. IT is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant that the impugned order came to be passed without giving the appellant/applicant opportunity of hearing by failing to implead the appellant/applicant as a party to the said writ petition prior to the hearing of the said petition and that passing of the impugned order has resulted in the W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 filed by the appellant/applicant infructuous as under the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has practically decided all the issues raised by the appellant/applicant relating to his case. 8. ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned order in no manner causes any prejudice to the appellant/applicant, as the order clearly records that the recasting of the panel and appointment, if any, come to the first empanelled candidate of the recast panel shall abide by the result of W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 and, therefore, the grievances of the appellant/applicant are unfounded. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We find that the panel prepared by the respondent school authority wherein Sri Ujjal Roy secured first position and was qualified for being appointed subject to the approval of panel by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly came to be disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly by his order dated July 3, 2009. We find that the panel prepared by the respondent school authority wherein Sri Ujjal Roy secured first position and was qualified for being appointed subject to the approval of panel by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly came to be disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly by his order dated July 3, 2009. The appellant/applicant was disqualified for being considered for appointment as his credentials were found to be invalid. Therefore, the panel under consideration was not approved. This decision of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly is the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant/applicant in W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009. 9. IN the said fact situation, the prospects of Sri Lal Mohan Ghosh being empanelled and considered for appointment against the said post of Peon (Group D) became evident and as the respondent school authority did not take any step for filling up the post of Peon (Group D) the said Lal Mohan Ghosh was left with no choice but to approach this court by filing writ petition 13762(w) of 2009. IN view of the fact that the appellant/applicant, Sri Ujjal Roy's proposal was already rejected by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly, and, therefore, the reliefs which were sought by the said Lal Mohan Ghosh was restricted to seeking directions from the court against the school authority to recast the panel prepared for recruitment to the post of Peon (Group D) by deleting the name of Sri Ujjal Roy as his name was disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly. 10. PROBABLY in this backdrop the learned Single Judge did not feel it necessary to insist upon joining Sri Ujjal Roy as a party respondent, however, while passing the impugned order protected his interest by mentioning in the order that in the event, the panel is approved and appointment is given to the first empanelled candidate of the recast panel, the same shall abide by the result of W.P. No. 13425(w) of 2009 [Ujjal Roy vs. State of West Bengal] and that this shall be incorporated in the order approving the panel. We, therefore, do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error or illegality while disposing of the writ petition by passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. We, therefore, do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error or illegality while disposing of the writ petition by passing the impugned order. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.