Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 741 (CAL)

Animesh Das v. State of West Bengal

2025-10-28

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. Two issues are involved in this writ petition; firstly, whether due to non-approval of the panel by the District Inspector of Schools, the same can be treated as existing and extended beyond the period of one year from its dated as stipulated in the Government Notification No. 1314(50)-SE(S)/4A-35/2002 dated September 17, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “No.1314”]; and secondly, whether even after the finding of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court regarding validity of the panel, the respondent has been justified and proper in finding the panel to have expired after the period of one year from its date. An order of the respondent/District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as “the DI”], dated January 31, 2019, is under challenge in the instant writ petition, by dint of which the said respondent has rejected the petitioner's prayer, due to the reason of invalidity of the panel. 2. Let the factual background of the case be stated in a nut shell. The concerned school is a minority institution, protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and regulated and guided by the Special Rules of 1974 [vide Notification No. 641- Edn(S)/8B-3-69/Pt. VII dated May 23, 1974]. A vacancy arose there, for the sanctioned post of Laboratory Attendant (Group- D) on December 2, 2010, due to retirement of an approved staff. Hence, for fresh recruitment an advertisement was published on January 17, 2013 to initiate the process. In continuation thereof interview was held on April 5, 2013 and a panel was prepared. Subsequently on March 19/20. 2014, the same panel was recast. The writ petitioner had found the second place in the said panel. 3. The first empaneled candidate was appointed on June 26, 2013 and the said panel was sent by the school, for approval of the DI. However, vide a letter dated March 31, 2015, the DI cancels appointment of the first empaneled candidate, for the reason of production of the fake credentials, but does not issue any order of approval or cancellation of the entire panel. The same remains pending in his office. In the meantime one year period expires without any order of approval of panel, being issued by the DI. 4. The same remains pending in his office. In the meantime one year period expires without any order of approval of panel, being issued by the DI. 4. The 1 st writ petition by the present petitioner follows, being W.P.No. 26931 (w) of 2015, which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated January 4, 2017, on the ground that one year life of the panel has already expired. This order of the Hon'ble Single Bench was challenged by the present petitioner in an intra-court appeal being FMA No. 1114 of 2017 along with CAN No. 2695 of 2017. The said order of the Appeal Court has been strongly relied on by Mr. Jana, learned advocate, who has represented the petitioner. The Court disposed of the appeal vide order dated December 13, 2018. The Court has firstly set aside the order dated January 4, 2017, of the Hon'ble Single Bench. Further it has directed the respondent/DI to take a decision as to whether approval to a recast panel of the candidates forwarded by the school authority on March 20, 2014 can be granted upon taking into account all the relevant factors necessary and required therefor. As such, it is submitted that, the ground of validity of the panel having expired after completion of one year period from its date, as was held by the Hon'ble Single Bench earlier, has been negated and turned down by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 5. Allegedly, while considering the writ petitioner's prayer, the respondent/DI has, as the foundation of his order dated January 31, 2019 (impugned), laid down the same ground, which has earlier been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. According to Mr. Jana learned advocate, this is in stark violation of the order of the Division Bench and hence, cannot be sustained. 6. He has submitted that as per provisions under the Notification No. 1314, the panel prepared by the selection committee for recruitment to the post of non-teaching staff shall remain valid for one year from the date of approval of the panel by the DI. He says that the DI has never approved the said panel, though has cancelled appointment of the 1 st empaneled candidate, for reasons as mentioned above. He says that the DI has never approved the said panel, though has cancelled appointment of the 1 st empaneled candidate, for reasons as mentioned above. In such circumstances, according to him, the panel subsists and the writ petitioner, being the next eligible candidate in the panel, is entitled for appointment in the said post. He submits this view and the interpretation of the Rules, are duly fortified by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated December 13, 2018. 7. According to Mr. Jana learned advocate, the respondent/DI in the impugned order has termed the panel as invalid due to efflux of time even before approving the same. It is stated that hence, the DI has committed violation of the Notification No. 1314 and the order of the Division Bench as well, in the said impugned order. According to the petitioner, this has rendered the impugned order as illegal. Not only that, the vital right of the petitioner for being considered for appointment has been jeopardized and thus the impugned order is irrational and arbitrary as well. Mr. Jana has sought for that appropriate relief be granted to the writ petitioner, by allowing the instant writ petition. 8. To buttress his arguments as mentioned above, Mr. Jana has referred to the following judgments in this case: (i) Oliul Islam vs State of West Bengal [2005(1) CLJ (Cal) 589] ; (ii) Tapan Kumar Das vs State of West Bengal [(2003) 3 Cal L T 441 (HC)] ; and (iii) Order dated June 14, 2011 in W.P.No. 22393 (w) of 2010. 9. It would be surprising to note that in his order dated January 31, 2019, the respondent/DI has not considered, followed or taken into account the Division Bench order of this Court dated December 13, 2018. This is a glaring example of sheer negligence by the respondent, if not that of utter willful disobedience and non-compliance of the Court's order. 10. Be that as it may, the said respondent being represented by Mr. Jayanta Samanta. This is a glaring example of sheer negligence by the respondent, if not that of utter willful disobedience and non-compliance of the Court's order. 10. Be that as it may, the said respondent being represented by Mr. Jayanta Samanta. In this case has put forth that, according to the notification No. 1092/ES/S/1014-104/2011 dated June 6, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as “No.1092”], there is a deeming provision that in case of no communication of any order of approval from the office of the District Inspector of Schools within a period of 45 working days from the date of receipt of the application from the school, such approval of appointment shall automatically be deemed to have been granted for filling up the vacant sanctioned post. Therefore, after expiry of the period of 45 days as mentioned in the said notification, the school authority ought to have granted appointment to the writ petitioner, being the 2 nd impaneled candidate. The school authority having not done so and in the meantime the period of 45 days as stipulated in the said notification having already expired, the panel has actually lost its force, Mr. Samanta has submitted. During argument the other point put forth is that the concerned post is a technical one, for which the writ petitioner does not possess the adequate technical knowledge, which was not amongst the initial grounds on which the approval of the panel has been declined by the said respondent. Hence, according to him, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondent/DI as alleged. He submits that no interference of this Court is at all sought for, as to the said order of the DI, as impugned in the instant writ petition. 11. Mr. Jayanta Samanta has relied on the following judgments in support of his argument: (i) Ali Hossain Mondal & Others vs West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Others [2024 SCC Online SC 1189] ; and (ii) Rani Laxmibai Khetriya Gramin Bank vs Chand Behari Kapoor & Others [(1998) 7 SCC 469]. 12. The issue with regard to the validity of the panel has been set at rest by dint of the order dated December 13, 2018, of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in FMA No. 1114 of 2017, which has reached its finality now and is binding on the parties. 12. The issue with regard to the validity of the panel has been set at rest by dint of the order dated December 13, 2018, of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in FMA No. 1114 of 2017, which has reached its finality now and is binding on the parties. In the same the Division Bench has set aside the order of the Single Judge, in which the Single Judge has held about invalidity of the panel due to expiry of the period of one year time. Also, that the Division Bench has held that the panel remains valid till the same is approved by the respondent/DI. The said respondent was directed to decide whether approval be granted as regards the said recast panel. Hence, the question as to whether the panel remains valid or not, ought not to have been a pertinent question in this case before the respondent authority but only whether it could have granted approval to the said panel not. 13. As stated earlier, the respondent, in his order dated January 31, 2019, has not taken into consideration the said order of the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, it has operated under a fundamentally erroneous perspective regarding the issue, notably depending on the order of the Single Judge, which had been annulled well in advance of the date of its consideration by the respondent body. Consequently, it has conducted under a fundamentally erroneous perspective regarding the issue, notably depending on the order of the Single Judge, which had been annulled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, well in advance of the date of its consideration by the respondent. 14. Therefore, as regards the question whether the panel remains valid after expiry of the period of one year time from its date is thus answered in terms of the order passed in this regard by the Division Bench, as mentioned above and is answered in affirmative. In this regard, therefore, the judgments relied on by the respondent, shall have no manner of application. 15. Now, the question is whether the respondent would be obliged under the law to give approval to the said panel. To understand the stages in the process of recruitment in a minority institution, one may look into the provisions of the Notifications No. 1314 and 1092, as mentioned above. 15. Now, the question is whether the respondent would be obliged under the law to give approval to the said panel. To understand the stages in the process of recruitment in a minority institution, one may look into the provisions of the Notifications No. 1314 and 1092, as mentioned above. Those as provided for formation of the selection committee and preparation of a panel by the said committee, for appointment in an institute like this. The important and relevant font this case is a process as stipulated therein, for sending the panel prepared by the selection committee, to the respondent authority for approval thereof. The relevant portion in the Notification No. 1314 in this regard may be quoted as bellow: “The School Authority shall submit the papers to the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) for approval of the appointment within 15 days of the joining of the employee and the District Inspector of Schools (SE) shall convey the decision within one month.” 16. It has been categorically provided that the validity of the panel prepared by the selection committee subsists for one year period, from the date of its approval by the authority. 17. In this case, the recast panel was sent to the respondent/DI for his approval. At that time, it was revealed that the 1st empanelled candidate, who has in fact been appointed by the school by that time, was not eligible to be appointed and approved, having produced fake credentials at the time of recruitment. Hence, the respondent/DI has rightly cancelled his appointment as unauthorised and illegal, vide his letter dated March 31, 2015. Though the rest of the panel has never been approved by the said respondent, till date. In absence of any procedural latches or any allegation to that effect or mention thereof by the respondent in this case, the rest of the panel ought to have been approved by the said respondent, after cancellation of appointment of the 1st impanelled candidate, for viable reasons. It is the appellant to have been assigned by the said respondent or not approving the rest of the panel, excepting the reason of invalidity of the panel due to the flux of time, which is however not sustainable any further after the order of the Division Bench as mentioned above. 18. It is the appellant to have been assigned by the said respondent or not approving the rest of the panel, excepting the reason of invalidity of the panel due to the flux of time, which is however not sustainable any further after the order of the Division Bench as mentioned above. 18. Therefore, the sole ground and basis on which the respondent/DI has founded his order as impugned in the instant case, shall have no legal or logical sanctity. The same appears to be in violation of the notifications as mentioned above as well as the order of the Division Bench, as noted above. The respondent ought to have granted approval of the rest of the panel in order to facilitate appointment of the present writ petitioner, who has participated and qualified in a proper recruitment process in accordance with rules, one filling up the said sanctioned vacant post in the school. 19. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order dated January 31, 2019, passed by the respondent/DI appears to be not in terms of the Rules and the order of the Division Bench of this Court. Hence it is liable to be set aside being illegal, irrational and arbitrary in nature. The instant writ petition should therefore succeed. 20. The writ petition No. WPA 15141 of 2023 is allowed, with the directions as follows: a. the impugned order dated January 31, 2019, passed by the respondent/DI is set aside; b. the writ petitioner being the 2 nd empanelled candidate and appointment of the 1 st empanelled candidate having already been cancelled, is entitled to be appointed and approved in service, in the respondent school as against the said sanctioned vacant post of the Laboratory Assistant (Group-D); c. the respondent No3/ DI is directed to immediately approve the rest of the panel by dint of a written order; d. the respondents No. 4 and 5/school authority shall accordingly issue appointment letter to the writ petitioner and take appropriate steps for grant of salary and other consequential benefits to him; e. the exercises by the respective respondents, as mentioned in 'c' and 'd' above, should be concluded within a cumulative period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. 21. The writ petition No. WPA 15141 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of. 22. 21. The writ petition No. WPA 15141 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of. 22. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.