Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 147 (CAL)

Amin Barman v. State of West Bengal

2016-02-09

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2016
JUDGMENT : The instant writ application has been preferred, inter alia, praying for implementation of the earlier order dated 5th March, 2012 passed in W.P. No.22279 (W) of 2011. Mr. Rahman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary under the District Primary School Council, Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the said Council). Though the petitioner did well in the examination, he was not empanelled and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.3 stating, inter alia, that though there were 237 posts under exempted category only 150 posts under the said category were filled up through exempted category candidates and the remaining posts were filled up by other category candidates and in the process the petitioner’s right to be considered for appointment stood frustrated. It was further stated in the said representation that a non-exempted category candidate having Roll No.400011433, Panel Sl. No.1023 and Rank 27 has got appointment as an exempted category candidate. Alleging non-consideration of the said representation the petitioner approached this Court earlier through a writ application being W.P. No.22279 (W) of 2011 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 5th March, 2012 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12th December, 2012. As the said order of this Court was not complied with the petitioner was constrained to prefer the instant writ application. By an earlier order dated 11th December, 2015 the Council was directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit. Pursuant thereto, a report has been filed. Let the same be kept on record. Mr. Rahman was handed over a copy of the said report and upon perusal of the same he submits that the issue to the effect that a non-exempted category candidate bearing Roll No.400011833, Panel Sl. No.1023 and Rank 27 was appointed as an exempted category candidate was not taken into consideration at the time of filling of the report. Ms. Bhowal, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that under exempted category 240 posts were filled up out of which 156 posts were under exempted category (Gen.), 53 posts were under exempted category (SC), 14 posts were under exempted category (ST) and 17 posts were under exempted category (OBC). Ms. Bhowal, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that under exempted category 240 posts were filled up out of which 156 posts were under exempted category (Gen.), 53 posts were under exempted category (SC), 14 posts were under exempted category (ST) and 17 posts were under exempted category (OBC). From the relevant panels, as produced today, she points out that no person having Roll No.“400011833” participated in the said selection process under exempted category. Answering a query of this Court as to whether the roll number as stated in representation tallies with rank no.27, Ms. Bhowal submits that the person at rank 27 in the exempted category (Gen.) was allotted Roll No.“40011905”. The person at rank 27 in the panel of exempted category (SC) was allotted a Roll No.“40011833”. There is no rank 27 in the panels prepared for the post of exempted category (ST) and exempted category (OBC) since under the said categories there were only 14 posts and 17 posts respectively. The copies of the said panels as produced today before this Court were shown to Mr. Rahman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Drawing the attention of this Court to the report filed by the said Council, Ms. Bhowal submits that the petitioner herein appeared under exempted category (SC) and he secured 12.87 marks whereas the lowest score in the said category was 18.35 and that as such the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration for empanelment and appointment. In view of such submissions made by Ms. Bhowal, the allegations made in the writ application do not survive and the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for and the writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.