Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1165 (CAL)

Prasenjit Maiti v. State of West Bengal

2014-12-09

ARIJIT BANERJEE, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner who approached the learned Single Judge seeking approval of the panel so far as the selection of Group-D (UR) to a particular school in question. The main allegation was, the Secretary of the Management Committee was one of the Selection Committee Members and panel of candidates contained the first candidate by name Prasenjit Maiti who was closely related to the then Secretary, Mr. Bidyut Maiti. Learned Judge after hearing the parties opined that the selection process of filling up the post of Group-D has to be completed by holding reinterview of the candidates who participated in the earlier selection process, by a new selection committee to be formed excluding person who has any blood relation with any of such participating candidates for the said post. 2. Aggrieved by this order, appellant is before us strenuously contending that he is not related to any of the members of the selection committee by blood or by marriage or by adoption. 3. In order to understand the ground upon which the District Inspector of Schools who is the approving authority of the panel refused the panel, we have to see the order. We note that without mentioning exact relationship between Bidyut Maiti and the particular candidate who is said to be relative vaguely mentions that from the records it appears Mr. Bidyut Maiti, Secretary of Managing Committee had a blood relative amongst the candidates who came for interview. How Bidyut Maiti is related to whom by blood or by marriage or by adoption is not at all spelt out. 4. No doubt, in the affidavit opposing the stay, contesting respondent has brought on record letter issued by Prodhan, Chaitanyapur-II Gram Panchayat wherein the details of family of Bidyut Maiti that is his father and brothers are given. As per this document, father of Bidyut Maiti and grandfather of the writ petitioner seems to be blood relatives as natural brothers. But the details placed on record by State indicates that genealogical tree with reference to not only Prasenjit Maiti but also with reference to Arun Maiti and Tarun Maiti, though not selected but were the candidates who came for interview. 5. But the details placed on record by State indicates that genealogical tree with reference to not only Prasenjit Maiti but also with reference to Arun Maiti and Tarun Maiti, though not selected but were the candidates who came for interview. 5. In the light of above material as the District Inspector's order is very bald lacking application of mind or even if application of mind is there not indicating the application of mind by detailing the details of relationship, we are of the opinion, the learned Judge was justified in setting aside the impugned order dated April 19, 2010 of the District Inspector of Schools. He being the authority to approve the panel for the post of Group- D in Lakshyakuri High School is expected to apply his mind to the facts of each case especially if a complaint is lodged indicating violation of the norms or guidelines or procedure for selection of Group-D panel. 6. In the light of above material placed before us, the dispute or controversy is whether Bidyut Maiti, Secretary of the Managing Committee at the relevant point of time was related to one of the candidates and/or any of the candidates who came for interview specially the serial no.1 as Bidyut Maiti happened to be the selection committee member. The order while approving or disapproving the panel must spell out the reasons with details why he rejects the objection raised or why he accepts the objection raised. For want of such exercise on his part, we dispose of the appeal setting aside the order of learned Single Judge directing the District Inspector of Schools to do the exercise of approving the panel for the post of Group-D in the High School in the light of our observations keeping in mind the relevant provisions, norms or guidelines or the procedure to be followed. All the parties concerned are entitled to place their submission with records before the District Inspector of Schools within a period of two weeks from date. 7. The District Inspector of Schools shall pass fresh orders with regard to approval for the post of Group-D by following the procedure contemplated in the light of our observations within six weeks thereafter. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.