Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

Both the writ petitions being W.P. No. 15733(W) of 2010 and W.P. No. 11352(W) of 2009 which were filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 were disposed of by a Learned Single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 27th June, 2012. These two Mandamus appeals are directed against the said order of the Learned Trial Judge at the instance of the appellant who was the respondent No. 7 in both the writ petitions. The respondent no.7 was the selected candidate for the post of clerk in Shyamsundarpur Patna High School (H.S.), Purba Medinipur.

The writ petitioner who was an unsuccessful candidate filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 11352(W) of 2009 challenging the legality of selection of the said respondent no.7. According to him, selection was not made properly. He complained that more marks were awarded to the respondent no.7 in the viva voce test and also in the typewriting test than what he actually deserved. A definite allegation of favouritism was made out against the headmaster of the said school who was also a member of the Selection Committee.

It was alleged that though a panel was prepared after holding the selection test placing the respondent no.7 at the top of the said panel, but such panel was neither accepted by the Managing Committee of the school nor submitted to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for his approval until a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by the respondent no.7 to the headmaster of the said school on account of bribe as a consideration for selecting the respondent No.7 for the said post.

Incidentally it may be mentioned herein that in course of enquiry held by the Managing Committee of the said school relating to such complaint, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in the bank account of the headmaster in two instalments; part of such payment was deposited in the bank account of the headmaster on 17th October, 2008 and the remaining part of such payment was deposited in the bank account of the headmaster on 24th October, 2008. Such deposits were all made immediately after the interview was held. The interview was held on 27th September, 2008.

Deposit of such money in the personal account of the headmaster was sought to be explained by the headmaster in the meeting of the Managing Committee by contending that he collected the said money from his brother and other relatives. However, he failed to disclose the names and other particulars of his brother and his other relatives from whom he collected the said money.

Thus, suspicion which arose out of such deposit of unaccounted money in the personal account of the headmaster at the crucial time, in our view, could not be properly explained by the headmaster, even though we find that the Managing Committee of the said school accepted the said explanation of the headmaster without holding any further enquiry.

In this context, the first writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of selection of the said respondent no.7 for the post of clerk in the said school. The legality of the panel which was so prepared and approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools was also challenged. Writ of mandamus was also sought for commanding the respondent no.3, viz., the District Inspector of Schools (SE) to enquire into the allegation of the writ petitioner against the headmaster viz., the respondent no.5 therein. Some other incidental reliefs were also claimed in the said writ petition.

Be it mentioned here that despite such definite allegation was made by the petitioner against one of the members of the Selection Committee for accepting bribe for selecting a non-deserving candidate, no affidavit was filed by any of the respondents in the said writ petition. Neither the headmaster of the said school nor the respondent no.7 viz., the selected candidate filed any affidavit denying the allegation made out by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition.

Subsequently during pendency