JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Birati Vidyalaya for Girls on purely temporary basis on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 17. 11. 1998.

( 2 ) IT appears from Annexure P-3 to this writ petition that at the time of giving such appointment, an assurance was given to the petitioner that his claim for appointment on regular basis will be considered on priority basis when recruitment will be made to the said post of the clerk in accordance with law.

( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that the petitioner is still rendering his service in the said post.

( 4 ) THE petitioner also claims that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the post of clerk. The petitioner also claims that he can also satisfy the other eligibility criteria for the said post.

( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the school authorities as the school authorities have refused to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of the clerk on regular basis. Accordingly, the instant writ petition has been moved by the petitioner seeking direction upon the school authorities for allowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process.

( 6 ) INSPITE of service of this writ petition upon the school authorities, none appears on their behalf to oppose the prayer when this writ petition is taken up for hearing.

( 7 ) MR. Oli Mohammed, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents, however, by relying upon the decision of the Special Bench of this Court reported in the case of Debasish Dutta v. State of West Bengal and ors. , (1998)2 Cal LJ page 1, submits that the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to participate in the selection process cannot be allowed as the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange. According to Mr. Oli Mahamrned, no candidate can be allowed to participate in the selection process by dehoring the extant Rules. Accordingly, Mr. Oli mohammed opposes the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for, in this writ petition.

( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and after considering the materials on record and particularly in view of the unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abu Taher v. Abdul waheb and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1203/01, in my view, the decision which was passed by the Special Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Debasish dutta (supra) has virtually been over-ruled.

( 9 ) IN such view of the matter, by following the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abu Taher (supra) I hold that the petitioner is entitled to participate in the selection process provided, however, the petitioner can satisfy the eligibility criteria for the said post.

( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I dispose of this writ petition by directing the school authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process on the date when such interview will be taken up by the Selection Committee for the said purpose, provided, however, the petitioner can satisfy that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the said post.

( 11 ) IN the event, it is found that the petitioner is eligible for the said post then, the school authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner along with other participants for the said post for the purpose of selection of candidate for the concerned post. (2005)1 WBLR] ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Coventry Co/7-O-Matic (Haryana) Ltd. 133

( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

( 13 ) THERE will, however, be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document