A. K. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE above two writ petitions involve identical questions. Hence, I have heard the said writ petitions analoguously and I intend to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

( 2 ) AT the outset I intend to set out the facts and circumstances of the said two writ petitions. Prahlad Kumar Maji : In this case the writ petitioner claimed to be a successful candidate in the interview held in the post of Group "d" staff in Banagram High School, Banagram, District : Birbhum. According to writ Petitioner, his name was appearing as a second candidate whereas the name of the Respondent No. 6 was appearing at the top of the panel. For the concerned post an interview was called by the school concerned upon receipt of the list of the sponsored candidates from the District Employment Exchange in accordance with the recruitment rules prevailing at that point of time. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Respondent No. 6 although not a sponsored candidate by the Employment Exchange was allowed to participate in the interview in terms of an order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 6 on December 9, 1998. Relying on the Special Benc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document