Glaring illegalities in the selection procedure can be challenged, and the Court has the authority to set aside the selection process and direct a restart in accordance with the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Rao, J. - Inspite of several directions of this Court, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 neither appeared before this Hon'ble Court nor have filed their affidavit-in-opposition by enclosing documents as directed by this Court and thus this court has no other alternative but to proceed with the case against the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

1. The Secretary Nagara Nirada Devi adibasi School (H.S.), District Murshidabad published a notice for appointment of a Clerk (General), Madhyamik pass equivalent with type writing 30 words in English.

2. The name of the petitioner was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Lalbagh and accordingly the Secretary of the school vide letter dt. 27.12.2008 requested the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee of the School on 20.01.2009 at 10.30 a.M along with all original certificates and mark-sheets at the time of interview.

3. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee and had also participated in the typing test held on 20.01.2009.

4. On completion of the interview process a Evaulation Sheet was prepared by the Committee on 20.01.2009 wherein the name of the petitioner is appearing at Sl. No. 43 and the position of the petitioner has been ranked as second and the name of the respndent no. 8 is placed at Sl. No. 35 and the position of the respondent no. 8 has been ranked as first.

5. On 16.02.2009, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the District Inspector of School on the allegation that after taking money and without considering the candidature of the petitioner the school authorities are going to appoint ineligible persons and requested for taking appropriate steps.

6. In the mean time the petitioner came to know that the respondent no. 8 who had typed only 15 words in typing test out of three/four paragraphs as dictated in the typing test had stand first whereas the petitioner who had typed 26 words out of the said paragraph stand second. The Secretary of the Managing Committee who was one of the member of the Selection Committee allotted 2.8 marks to the respondent no. 8 and had allotted only 0.30 marks to the petitioner in the typing test.

7. as the authorities have not taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the marks allotted to the respondent no. 8 in the typing test, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

8. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Ld. advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that after vacancy notice issued by the School authority, the petitioner had applied for the post of Clerk in the said school and the school authorities have also issued a letter to the petitioner as sponsored candidate of the Employment Exchange to appear in the selection process on 20.01.2009.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that in the typing test conducted by the committee, the petitioner has typed the following paragraph:

'Initial investigation by the Registrar of Companies into the Satyam Scam has revealed large-scale selling of Company shares by institutional investors just days ahead of Ramalin.'

10. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent no. 8 has also participated in the typing test and has typed the same which is as follows:

'Initial investigation by the Registrar of computer into the scalm has large-scale selling of'

11. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has typed one paragraph of four lines containing about 26/27 words and the petitioner has not committed any mistake wherein the respondent no. 8 had typed only two lines containing 15/16 words that too several mistakes but while awarding marks of the typing test, Shri amar Mondal Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school who was also the member of Selection Committee had awarded 0.30 marks to the petitioner wherein the said member has awarded 2.8 marks to the respon