Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 410 (CAL)

Panchanan Bera v. State of West Bengal

2018-06-13

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2018
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 1st May, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 4642 (W) of 2018, Sri Panchanan Bera vs. State of West Bengal and Others. 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition of Sri Panchanan Bera who was appearing in-person. The appellant/writ petitioner has now preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order dated 1st May, 2018. 5. For the sake of convenience, the impugned judgment and order is reproduced herein-below in its entirety:- “The petitioner appears in person. The petitioner seeks age relaxation to participate in a selection process. The municipality and the State are represented. Learned advocate for the municipality submits that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. There was a selection process of 2015 where the petitioner had participated. Such fact is not pleaded in the writ petition. It is admitted by the petitioner that, municipality had undertaken a selection process in 2015. According to the petitioner, he had participated in such selection process. According to him, the municipality did not permit him to continue with the participation as he was overage. The fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process in 2015 and that, there was a selection process of 2015 is not pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioner has obtained an interim order on April 11, 2018 on the strength of the pleadings as contained in the writ petition. A candidate is entitled to age relaxation once during his lifetime. Such age relaxation has to be given in the first available selection process. In the present case, there was a selection process in 2015 where according to the petitioner he had sought to participate. The so called wrongful denial of such right of the municipality was not challenged by the petitioner at all. These relevant facts are not pleaded by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is guilty of suppression of material facts. The so called wrongful denial of such right of the municipality was not challenged by the petitioner at all. These relevant facts are not pleaded by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The writ petition is guilty of suppression of material facts. The order dated April 11, 2018 is recalled. W.P. No. 4642 (W) of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as reproduced herein-below, reveals that the appellant/writ petitioner had obtained an interim order earlier on 11th April, 2018, on the strength of the pleadings as contained in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was pleased to take note of the fact that a candidate was entitled to age relaxation once during his lifetime. Such age relaxation had been given in the first available selection process. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that there was a selection process in the year 2015, where, according to the appellant/writ petitioner, he had participated. The learned Single Judge held that the so-called wrongful denial of such right of the municipality was not challenged by the petitioner at all. These relevant facts were not pleaded by the petitioner. As such, the learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the writ petition. Rather, the learned Single Judge found the writ petitioner of being guilty of suppression of material facts. 7. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal no interference is usually warranted unless the impugned judgment and order suffers from palpable infirmities or perversities. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities. Rather, the impugned judgment and order has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. 8. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. I agree – Arindam Mukherjee, J.