Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Pratap Kumar Ray And Mr. Justice Tapas Kumar Giri
GAYA NATH RAJBANSHI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. A. N. 345 Of 2007
Decided On : 03/06/2007
WRIT PETITION - NON-SPONSORED CANDIDATE - APPEARANCE IN INTERVIEW - RIGHT TO APPEAR - ADVERTISEMENT OF VACANCY - EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a non-sponsored candidate, challenged the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dismissing his writ petition and vacating all interim orders. The appellant had sought to appear in the interview for the post of Peon in Nabapally J. C. S. High School, alleging that juniors were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that he had the right to appear as a non-sponsored candidate based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna District A. P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant's grievance that junior candidates were sponsored, denying his right to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange Authority, had no basis. The Court further held that the appellant had no right to appear in the interview in view of the rotational formula introduced by the Employment Exchange brochure formulating a process of rotation to accommodate maximum number of candidates enrolled in the Employment Exchange with equal opportunity for their appearance in the interview.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the right to appear in the interview as a non-sponsored candidate? 2. Whether the rotational rule of the Employment Exchange was ultra vires?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the right of non-sponsored candidates to appear in the interview is not a simplicitor right but a right with a rider that in the event of open advertisement of the post, non-sponsored candidates may appear as held in the case of Visweshwara Rao (supra). 2. The Court held that the rotational rule of the Employment Exchange was not under challenge in the writ application as ultra vires.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the appeal and the writ petition, holding that the appellant had no right to appear in the interview and that the rotational rule of the Employment Exchange was not ultra vires.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
( 2 ) THE appeal and application both are taken up for hearing.
( 3 ) CHALLENGING the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W. P. No. 10016 (W) of 2001 this application has been preferred. The writ application was dismissed and all interim orders were vacated. The appellant/writ petitioner moved the writ application praying the following relief:-
" (a) For that the writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The Secretary and the headmaster of Nabapally J. C. S. High School, Post Office-Gantla, police Station-Kandi, District-Murshidabad, to allow the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee prepared for appointment to the post of Peon of the said High School along with the other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned, as and when the interview will be held for the said post of Peon on 05. 08. 2000 or so soon thereafter; (b) For a writ of or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and produce or cause to produce to the registrar, Appellate Side of the Hon'ble Court, all the papers, documents and records relating to and/or arising out of this so that conscionable justice may be done to your petitioner by considering the same; (c) For an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents, their sub-ordinates and agent from holding interview for the post of Peon of Nabapally J. C. S. High School, amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Officer concerned on 05. 08. 2001 or any adjounred day till the disposal of this writ application; (d) Rules in terms of prayer (a) and (b) above; (e) An ad-interim order of injunction in terms of prayer; (f) To make the rule absolutely if the respondents fail to show sufficient cause or return; (g) Such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper"
.
( 4 ) IT was the case made out in the writ application by the writ petitioner that a post of 'peon', a Group-D staff under the cadre of non- teaching post of Nabapally J. C. S. High School got its prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools concerned for being filled up on interviewing the candidates by inviting the names from the Employment exchange. The Employment Exchange referred the names of twenty candidates, some of them were juniors to writ petitioner as alleged and, as such, there was denial of sponsorship of the name of the petitioner arbitrarily by the Employment Exchange Authority. At the same time another point canvassed that as a non-sponsored candidates the writ petitioner got the right to appear for which he filed a representation but the same was rejected by the Managing Committee of the school. Right of the writ petitioner to appear as a non-sponsored candidate was pleaded with the foundation of the case of the Apex Court Excise Superintendent, malkapatnam Krishna District A. P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. , reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216. Paragraph-9 of the writ, speaks about the foundation on the basis of the said Supreme Court judgment, which reads such:-
"9. Your petitioner states that in a case being 1996 (6) Supreme court Cases 216 (Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna district A. P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors.) very recent the supreme Court of India held that restricting the selection only to the candidates by the Employment Exchange is not proper and in addition to requisitioning the names from the Employment Exchange name should also be called for by publication in newspapers having wide circulation and display on office notice board or announcement in Radio, Television and Employment News Bulletin and the Hon'ble supreme Court further observed in the said case that such a procedure would subserve fair play as provided in the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. "
( 5 ) BY an interim order dated 23rd July, 2001 Ashim Kumar Banerjee,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
