Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 658 (CAL)

Governing Body, Saldiha College v. Keramat Ali

2014-07-22

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2014
Judgment Re : CAN 6780 of 2014. On the prayer of the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, leave is granted to the Learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to amend the memorandum of appeal for challenging the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10619(W) of 2014, in addition to the challenge which has already been made by the appellants against the order dated 18th June, 2014 passed by the Learned Trial Judge. Selection process was initiated by the college authority for filling up various vacant posts, such as : 1. Electrician-cum-Caretaker (UR), 2. Lab Attendant (Physiology) (UR), 3. Lab Attendant (Chemistry) (SC), 4. Sweeper (SC), 5. Guard (SC), 6. Peon (SC), 7. Mali, 8. Clerk (UR) 9. Clerk (SC). After holding the selection tests for filling up those vacancies, individual panel was prepared for each of those vacancies by the selection committee. Initially the governing body adopted a resolution by cancelling all the panels, including the panel which was prepared for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur), without giving any reason for disapproval of these panels. Challenging the said resolution of the governing body, writ petition being W.P. 10619(W) of 2014 was moved by the writ petitioner. After entertaining the said writ petition, the Learned Single Judge of this Court by His order dated 8th May, 2014 cancelled the resolution which was adopted by the governing body. The Teacher-in-Charge was directed to supply all the papers to the governing body and the governing body was directed to grant approval on that basis and send it to the Director of Public Instruction for taking proper action. The writ petition was directed to be listed two weeks after the summer vacation. Subsequently, the governing body on the basis of the papers supplied by the Teacher-in-Charge considered those papers and ultimately approved the panel prepared by the selection committee with regard to eight posts, excepting the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur). The reason for disapproval of the panel, prepared by the selection committee, for the electrician-cum-caretaker (ur) has also been mentioned in the resolution of the governing body. Presently, we are concerned with the governing body's resolution with regard to the panel for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur). The reason for disapproval of the panel, prepared by the selection committee, for the electrician-cum-caretaker (ur) has also been mentioned in the resolution of the governing body. Presently, we are concerned with the governing body's resolution with regard to the panel for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur). Since the panel prepared by the selection committee for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur) was not approved by the governing body, in terms of the interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 8th May, 2014; His Lordship set aside the decision of the governing body with regard to the panel prepared for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur) and again directed the governing body to grant approval in favour of Tamal Bhattacharjee who occupied the first position in the panel for the said post. The writ petition was adjourned for a week and the governing body was directed to produce its approval to the panel, prepared for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur), before the Court, with a rider that in case such approval is not produced before the Court, penal measure would be taken against the authority. The said order which was passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th June, 2014 is under challenge in the mandamus appeal at the instance of the governing body of the said college. On perusal of the materials on record, including the interim order passed on 8th May, 2014 and the order passed on 18th June, 2014; we are still at a loss to understand as to what prompted the Learned Trial Judge to pass direction upon the governing body to grant approval to the panel when no decision was taken by the governing body on the merit of the said panel after consideration of the materials relevant thereto. The governing body is the authority which can either approve the panel prepared by the selection authority or may disapprove the panel prepared by the selection authority. The decision of the governing body either approving the panel or disapproving the panel may be scrutinized by the Court for ascertaining the correctness of the decision of the governing body. The governing body is the authority which can either approve the panel prepared by the selection authority or may disapprove the panel prepared by the selection authority. The decision of the governing body either approving the panel or disapproving the panel may be scrutinized by the Court for ascertaining the correctness of the decision of the governing body. But, the court on its own, without permitting the governing body to take its decision on the issue regarding grant of approval to the panel prepared by the selection committee, cannot take any decision either for approving the panel or for disapproving the panel. In the present case, this has, in fact, been done by the Learned Trial Judge. In our view, the Learned Trial Judge instead of directing the governing body to approve the panel on 8th May, 2014; ought to have directed the governing body to consider the said panel and take the ultimate decision thereon. This has not been done by the Learned Trial Judge. Thus, we find that even the direction which was passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 8th May, 2014 is erroneous and cannot be retained on record. Since the subsequent order which was passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 18th June, 2014 is a consequential order, the said order also cannot be retained on record. We, thus, quash both the aforesaid orders passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 8th May, 2014 and 18th June, 2014 in W.P. No. 10619(W) of 2014. Both the orders, thus, stand quashed. We, however, direct the governing body of the said college to send the resolution adopted by the governing body disapproving the panel prepared for the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur) alongwith all other relevant documents relating to preparation of such panel to the Director of Public Instruction within two weeks from date and the Director of Public Instruction is also directed to verify the relevant documents to ascertain the justifiability of the decision of the governing body for disapproving the said panel and communicate his decision to the governing body and the writ petitioner immediately after such decision is taken by the Director of Public Instruction. Such exercise should be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the relevant documents from the governing body and while making such exercise, if the Director of Public Instruction holds that the governing body was not justified in disapproving the panel, then he will issue necessary instruction to the governing body to do justice to the deserving candidate. The appeal as well as the writ petition are disposed of. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no further order need be passed on the application. Accordingly, the application is also disposed of. It is made clear that this order will be applicable only with regard to the post of electrician-cum-caretaker (ur).