SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Cal) 737

PRATAP KUMAR RAY
CHANDI PRASAD MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMITABRATA ROY, ANIRUDDHA CHATTERJEE, KAJAL ROY, MONI BHUSAN SARKAR, SUNITI SEN GUPTA

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.


( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) IN the instant case, it is the grievance of the petitioner, who was a candidate appeared in the interview for Group 'd' post in the secondary school, managed and controlled by the Chandernagore Municipality on the point that desire completion of process of selection the panel has not been approved by the District Inspector of Schools concerned. The petitioner prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools concerned to approve the panel. This writ application has been opposed by the State respondents by filling an affidavit through the District Inspector of Schools concerned, contending, inter alia, that under the Recruitment Rules issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal vide Memo No. 2066-G. A. dated 27th October, 1995 which has applicability with reference to all appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school managed and controlled by the Chandernagore Municipality in view of their Rules namely, chandernagore Municipal Corporation (Education Committee) Rules, 1995, the Chandernagore Municipality has no jurisdiction and power to advertise
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top