Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1286 (CAL)

Sannyasi Charan Kayal v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-09-15

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. TWO writ petitions filed by different petitioners are taken up for consideration simultaneously as both the writ petitions relate to a common cause of action. First of such writ petitions being W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009 was filed by Sannyasi Charan Kayal, a candidate who participated in the selection process for the post of Group "D" in Jukiveri Matangini Bidyapith in the District of Purba Medinipur. The said petitioner prayed for cancellation of the panel which was prepared by the selection committee on the basis of the interview held on 30th August, 2009 and for recasting the said panel by excluding one of the candidates namely, Smt. Anita Shit, the respondent no.10 as she allegedly adopted unfair means in course of selection test. 2. THE other writ petition being W.P. No. 12670(W) of 2011 was filed by the school authority challenging an order dated 28-06-2011 by which the District Inspector of School (SE), Purba Medinipur, cancelled his earlier order dated 11-04-2011. By the order dated 11-04-2011, the said District Inspector of Schools refused to consider the said panel as the school authority resolved in its resolution dated 16-03-2011 for calling back the said panel which was submitted to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval. THE petitioners therein also prayed for issuance of directions upon the concerned authority for filling up the said post through School Service Commission immediately. Let me now consider the merits of the aforesaid two writ petitions in the facts and circumstances under which those two writ petitions were filed. Admittedly, the said selection process was initiated by the school authority on the basis of a prior permission granted by the concerned District Inspector of Schools under the old Recruitment Rules of 2005. Names of suitable candidates were sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange. Some of the candidates also applied for the said post by offering their candidature. A selection committee was constituted by the managing Committee of the said school for holding the selection test. Interview of the eligible candidates was taken by the selection committee on 30th August, 2009. On the basis of the performance of the participating candidates, a panel was prepared by the selection committee and the said panel was placed before the Managing Committee of the said school. Interview of the eligible candidates was taken by the selection committee on 30th August, 2009. On the basis of the performance of the participating candidates, a panel was prepared by the selection committee and the said panel was placed before the Managing Committee of the said school. After examining the said panel, the Managing Committee of the said school forwarded the same along with the other relevant papers to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval. Before the said panel was taken up for consideration by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner of W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009 with the concerned District Inspector of Schools, stating therein that the candidature of the respondent no.10 of the said writ petition should be cancelled as she adopted unfair means in the selection test. She also lodged similar complaint with the Managing Committee of the said school and prayed for recasting the panel on the basis of the interview held on 30th August, 2009 after excluding the respondent no.10 from the zone of consideration as she adopted unfair means in the selection test. Before any decision was taken by the concerned District Inspector of Schools on the complaint made by the said complainant, the school authority adopted a resolution on 16- 03-2011 for cancellation of the said panel on two- fold grounds; firstly, for the reason of the complaint made against some candidates for adoption of unfair means in the selection test and secondly, for the reason that one of the members of the selection committee namely, Panchayat nominee left without awarding marks to the participating candidates. 3. IT was, thus, resolved by the Managing Committee in the said meeting, that the panel which was sent to the concerned District Inspector of Schools should be recalled and the school authority be permitted to complete the said process by holding re-interview of those candidates, who participated in the selection process earlier. The said resolution was forwarded to the said District Inspector of Schools, who, on receipt thereof, refused to consider the said panel. The said District Inspector of Schools, however, rejected the school authority’s prayer for completion of the said selection process by re-interview of those candidates who participated in the selection process earlier. The said resolution was forwarded to the said District Inspector of Schools, who, on receipt thereof, refused to consider the said panel. The said District Inspector of Schools, however, rejected the school authority’s prayer for completion of the said selection process by re-interview of those candidates who participated in the selection process earlier. On the contrary, the school authorities were requested to submit the vacancy statement to the concerned Additional District Inspector of Schools for filling up the said vacancy through School Service Commission as per the new Recruitment Rules of 2009 which came into operation in the meantime. The said decision was communicated to the school authority by the said District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 11th April, 2011, which was subsequently recalled by the concerned District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 20th June, 2011, by taking note of the pendency of the W.P. No. 17556(W) of 2009. The said order which was communicated to the school authority by the District Inspector of Schools vide the letter dated 20th June, 2011 is the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petition being W.P. No. 12670(W) of 2011 filed by the school authority. 4. LET me now consider as to how far the school authority was justified in adopting the subsequent resolution on 16th March, 2011. On perusal of the said resolution, this Court finds that without inquiring into the allegation made by the said complainant and without coming to a definite conclusion as to the correctness of the allegation regarding adoption of unfair means by the respondent no.10 in the selection test, the school authority resolved to call back the panel which was submitted to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his consideration. The other reason for which the school authority decided to call back the said panel from the said District Inspector of Schools, was for refusal of one of the members of the selection committee to award marks to the participating candidates. 5. IN my view, none of the aforesaid grounds for which the school authorities adopted the said resolution was justified. Without holding an enquiry into the allegations of the complainant and without coming to a definite conclusion as to the correctness of such complaint, the school authority ought not to have taken any decision to call back the panel. 5. IN my view, none of the aforesaid grounds for which the school authorities adopted the said resolution was justified. Without holding an enquiry into the allegations of the complainant and without coming to a definite conclusion as to the correctness of such complaint, the school authority ought not to have taken any decision to call back the panel. Then again; refusal to award marks to the participating candidate by one of the members of the selection committee cannot be a ground of cancellation of the panel as more than 50% of the members of the selection committee awarded marks to the participating candidates and the panel was prepared by them on the basis of the marks awarded by more than 50% of the members of the selection committee to the participating candidates. It has already been decided in a number of decision of this Court, that selection process cannot be vitiated merely because of absence of one of the members of the selection committee and/or for not awarding marks by one of such members of the selection committee to the participating candidates. It was further held that if the panel is prepared by taking into account the marks given by more than 50% members of the selection committee such panel cannot be rejected. 6. AS such, this Court holds that the said resolution dated 16th March, 2011 was absolutely illegal and the same ought to have been ignored by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. That apart, the unreported decision of Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, passed on 9th November, 2006 in MAT No. 2892 of 2006, relied upon by Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate, appearing for the school authority, clearly shows that once a validly constituted selection committee prepares a panel, then the Managing Committee has no other authority or power to exercise than to forward the said panel to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval. Since, the validity of constitution of the selection committee is not under challenge from any quarter, the panel which was so prepared by the said selection committee cannot be recalled by the school authority after it was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his consideration. Since, the validity of constitution of the selection committee is not under challenge from any quarter, the panel which was so prepared by the said selection committee cannot be recalled by the school authority after it was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his consideration. Under such circumstances, this Court feels that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) is the appropriate authority who is required to take the ultimate decision on the said panel after taking into consideration the complaint made by the complainant as aforesaid. Thus, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions by directing the District Inspector of Schools to consider the said panel on the issue regarding grant of approval thereto and while doing so the concerned District Inspector of Schools is required to consider the complaint lodged by the said complainant and take the ultimate decision thereon, by passing a reasoned order by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners of both the aforesaid writ petitions, the respondent no.10 of the first writ petition against whom allegation of adoption of unfair means was made and the school authority. The entire exercise, in this regard, should be completed within twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order. The District Inspector of Schools is also directed to intimate his decision to all who will participate in the said hearing before the District Inspector of Schools within two weeks thereafter. The impugned orders, dated 11- 04-2011 and 28-06-2011 both passed by the concerned District Inspector of Schools being annexure "P/2" and "P/4" of the writ petition filed by the school authority, stand quashed. 7. BOTH the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.