WRIT PETITION 9853 of 2003 on 20 September 2001

1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the appointment of the private respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher inHistory in Karui High School. It is alleged that the petitioneras well as other candidates could not participate at theinterview as they were obstructed and the petitioner made arepresentation in that regard to the Secretary of the School onthe date of interview i.e. on 5[th] October, 1999.

2. The petitioner further alleges that apart from the privaterespondent, no one appeared at the interview and the schoolauthority prepared a one-man panel in violation of theRecruitment Rules. The petitioner further alleges that therespondent, no one appeared at the interview and the schoolauthority prepared a one-man panel in violation of theRecruitment Rules. The petitioner further alleges that the father of the private respondent is the Headmaster of theschool in question.

3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for thepetitioner strenuously contends that the preparation of one-man panel and sending the same to the concerned authorityfor approval of such panel is in violation of the RecruitmentRules. He further submits that the authorities ought to haveconducted a fresh selection process for appointment to thepost of Assistant Teacher as no other candidate excepting theprivate respondent were allowed to participate in theinterview.petitioner strenuously contends that the preparation of one-man panel and sending the same to the concerned authorityfor approval of such panel is in violation of the RecruitmentRules. He further submits that the authorities ought to haveconducted a fresh selection process for appointment to thepost of Assistant Teacher as no other candidate excepting theprivate respondent were allowed to participate in theinterview.

4. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for theprivate respondent submits that the panel was preparedstrictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Thecandidate could not have been faulted for any action taken bythe respondent authorities. He further submits that theprivate respondent filed a writ petition praying for approvalof the panel and a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the prayer ofthe writ petitioner. The appeal preferred by the State againstsuch order stood dismissed. The writ petitioner preferred aSpecial Leave Petition challenging the order of the Hon’bleDivision Bench, which was withdrawn by the petitionerherein.private respondent submits that the panel was preparedstrictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Thecandidate could not have been faulted for any action taken bythe respondent authorities. He further submits that theprivate respondent filed a writ petition praying for approvalof the panel and a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the prayer ofthe writ petitioner. The appeal preferred by the State againstsuch order stood dismissed. The writ petitioner preferred aSpecial Leave Petition challenging the order of the Hon’bleDivision Bench, which was withdrawn by the petitionerherein.

5. He further submits that suppressing the fact of dismissal ofthe Special Leave Petition, a review application was filed,which was also dismissed. He submits that the privaterespondent has joined the said institution in the year 5[th]December, 2001 and is still serving the said school.the Special Leave Petition, a review application was filed,which was also dismissed. He submits that the privaterespondent has joined the said institution in the year 5[th]December, 2001 and is still serving the said school.

6. Heard Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of theState on the above submission.State on the above submission.

7. Record reveals that the Hon’ble Division Bench by an orderdated September 20, 2001 dismissed the appeal preferred bythe State of West Bengal against the order of the learnedSingle Judge. Challenging the said order, the petitionerpreferred a Special Leave Petition being, Special LeavePetition (Civil) No.9853 of 2003, which came up for hearingon 16[th] December, 2005 and the learned advocate appearingfor the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Courtsought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition andthe permission sought for was granted and the Special LeavePetition was dismissed as withdrawn.dated September 20, 2001 dismissed the appeal preferred bythe State of West Bengal against the order of the learnedSingle Judge. Challenging the said order, the petitionerpreferred a Special Leave Petition being, Special LeavePetition (Civil) No.9853 of 2003, which came up for hearingon 16[th] December, 2005 and the learned advocate appearingfor the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Courtsought permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition andthe permission sought for was granted and the Special LeavePetition was dismissed as withdrawn.

8. It further appears from the record that the petitioner filed anapplication for review of the order passed by the Hon’bleDivision Bench and the review petition stood dismissed fordefault on 1[st] August, 2002.application for review of the order passed by the Hon’bleDivision Bench and the review petition stood dismissed fordefault on 1[st] August, 2002.

9. The issue of appointment of the private respondent wasconclusively decided in the earlier round of litigation asobserved hereinbefore.conclusively decided in the earlier round of litigation asobserved hereinbefore.

10. When the appointment of the private respondent to the postof Assistant Teacher in History in the 3[rd] respondent schoolwas not interfered with up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court,this Court cannot reopen such issue in this writ petition. Theappointment of the private respondent has also beenapproved and the private respondent is serving in the saidschool since December, 2001.of Assistant Teacher in History in the 3[rd] respondent schoolwas not interfered with up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court,this Court cannot reopen such issue in this writ petition. Theappointment of the private respondent has also beenapproved and the private respondent is serving in the saidschool since December, 2001.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to grantany relief in favour of the petitioner and the writ petitionaccordingly stands dismissed.any relief in favour of the petitioner and the writ petitionaccordingly stands dismissed.

12. In view of the order, pending application, if any, also standsdisposed of.disposed of.

13. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, befurnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of alllegal formalities.furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of alllegal formalities.

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)