Sahanaj Begum v. State Of West Bengal & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A. 9978 of 2013 Sahanaj Begum VS The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh Mr. Subir Hazra Ms. Kakali Samajpati ..... for the petitioner Ms. Sudipa Roy Mr. Srinath Singha Roy ...... for the State Mr. Saibal Acharyya ...... for respondent No. 4 The petitioner had applied for the post of a Court No. 22 22.9.2022 (Item No. 6) (AB) Para-Teacher in History at Kapasia A. M. High School (H.S.), District Uttar Dinajpur in the year 2010. The selection committee had prepared the panel after holding the interview on February 25, 2010 and the panel was prepared. The private respondent No. 7 was employed. The petitioner alleged that the private respondent No. 7 did not produce the EPIC Card in terms of the advertisement for employment which would evident as to her residential proof. This being a mandatory condition not fulfilled by the private respondent No. 7, petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 7 and sought for her own appointment since the petitioner claimed to have stood second in the merit list of the selection process. The first round of writ petition had ended by a co-ordinate Bench of its order

dated October 18, 2012. The respondent No. 2 was directed to dispose of the letter of objection of the petitioner dated May 4, 2010 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a time frame. Pursuant to the said direction dated October 18, 2012 the impugned order was passed on January 30, 2013. Challenging the said impugned order the petitioner filed this writ petition in 2013 itself. Drawing attention to the said impugned order, Annexure P-8 to the writ petition, the petitioner submitted that, from the same also it would be evident that, the private respondent No. 7 did not produce the EPIC Card which was a mandatory condition in the advertisement dated February 5, 2010 inviting employment.

Mr. Prahlad Chandra Gosh, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the appointment of the respondent No. 7 being illegal one and without being inconformity of the condition laid down in the advertisement inviting employment, her appointment cannot stand in the eye of law. He further submitted that, the petitioner having been stood second in the merit list of the employment, she should get an appointment.

Mr.

Saibal Acharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 4 drew attention of this Court to page 42 of the writ petition and submitted that, the respondent No. 7 had already resigned from

her employment from the school since November 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further submitted that the post is still vacant since July 7, 2011. He further confirmed that the petitioner stood second in the merit list for selection. Ms. Sudipa Roy, learned counsel appears for the State.

The respondent No. 7 is not represented.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appearing parties and considering the materials on record it appears to this Court that, the panel was of 2013. The process for selection was initiated in 2010. In the event the respondent No. 7 had actually resigned from the post and the post is still vacant, which was the subject matter under the advertisement dated February 5, 2010 as contended by the respondent No. 4 and the writ petitioner, the School Authority may take a decision strictly in accordance with law on the issue raised by the writ petitioner.

It is made clear that the School Authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order and there shall be no mandate on the School Authority in this regard and it will be on the sole discretion of the School Authority to decide the issue.

This order in any event shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner.

On the above terms, this writ petition being WPA 9978 of 2013 stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)