Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 237 (CAL)

Subol Chandra Dolai v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-03-21

J.K.BISWAS

body2012
Judgment 1. THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated November 16, 2000 wanted to participate in a selection process initiated by one Rautmoni Rautan Chandi High School in Kharagpur (Paschim Medinipur) for appointing a peon. 2. ALLEGING that the School Authority was not inclined to permit him to participate in the process, he brought this WP. By an interim order dated November 22, 2000 the School Authority was directed to permit him to participate in the process. It was ordered that if he was appointed, then the appointment would be subject to the final decision in the WP. The petitioner participated in the process and was selected. One Sudhir Chandra Ghorai, a candidate, alleged that the petitioner was not eligible. Sudhir moved a WP No.17250(W) of 2004 before this Court under art.226. The petitioner was a respondent. By an order dated November 23, 2004 the WP was disposed of directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the entire matter. 3. ALLEGING that even after hearing the parties the District Inspector of Schools was not giving the decision, and that taking advantage of the situation the School Authority was making arrangements to appoint the petitioner, Sudhir moved a second WP No.19410(W) of 2005 before this Court under art.226. It is on the monthly list as item no.219. During pendency of both the WPs the District Inspector of Schools has given a decision in compliance with the order of this Court dated November 23, 2004. 4. FROM the submissions of Mr. Mahato appearing for the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that enforcing the decision of the District Inspector of Schools the School Authority has not offered him appointment. Sudhir, though not a party to this WP, is represented by Mr. Bhattacharya who is present to argue Sudhirs WP, the next case. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that Sudhir has reason to feel aggrieved by the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. He has said that the decision has been produced by Sudhir with his reply to the petitioners opposition to Sudhirs WP. 5. CORRECTNESS of the decision of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be examined when the decision has not been challenged by anyone. By producing the decision with the reply Sudhir could not question the decision. For questioning it he was required to initiate original proceedings. 5. CORRECTNESS of the decision of the District Inspector of Schools cannot be examined when the decision has not been challenged by anyone. By producing the decision with the reply Sudhir could not question the decision. For questioning it he was required to initiate original proceedings. In his WP the issue was inaction on the part of the District Inspector of Schools in that he was not giving the decision. Once the decision was given, Sudhirs WP lost significance. 6. THIS WP also lost significance, because the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide all questions. He was to decide the question whether the petitioner was entitled to participate in the process. Whether he is right or wrong is another matter, and that can be examined only if original proceedings are initiated questioning his decision. But, in my opinion, nothing remains to be decided either in this WP or in the WP filed by Sudhir. For these reasons, I dispose of this WP saying that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from taking steps for seeking benefit of the decision of the District Inspector of Schools. It is made clear that nothing herein shall entitle the petitioner to an appointment offer. No costs.