IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order imposing a ban on new engagements cannot be applied retrospectively and does not affect pending selection processes.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The present writ petition was instituted primarily to question the justifiability of a decision rendered by the District Project Officer, Malda on 16.12.2013 in deference to the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 813 of 2012 (Annexure-P/17 to the writ petition), whereby the District Project Officer refused to accord approval to the panel, as re-casted in terms of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in WPA no. 16735(W) of 2009 taking recourse to the ban imposed by the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal vide its memo no. 376-SE(P) dated 09.06.2010 in giving new engagement in the posts of Para Teacher with a further prayer for issue of writ of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to engage the petitioner in the post of Additional Para Teacher (Social Science Group) in Nayatuli Mahanandapur High Madrasah (in shot, the Madrasah).

2. Before going to delve deep down the controversy, it would be apposite to advert to the facts, as frescoed in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto. In 2007, a selection process was undertaken by the managing committee of the Madrasha to engage one Additional Para Teacher in Social Science Group and as such, by a notification vide. no. 247(2400)/SSM dated 27.07.2007, applications were invited from the eligible and intending candidates. The essential educational qualification for the post was B.A. provided that the candidate passed the examination in the relevant subject having full marks of 300. The petitioner who graduated with History as a combination subject of 300 marks offered her candidature for the post.

3. An assessment of percentage of marks secured by the candidates in Madhyamik, Higher Secondary and graduation was the only mode of selection, as prescribed in the notification dated 27.07.2007. Accordingly, the Central Project Coordinator prepared a panel placing the petitioner, who secured 45.8% marks, at the top of the three men’s panel. The other two candidates namely, Ruma Thokdar and Susmita Das acquiring 38.7% and 38.5% marks found their births in the panel against serial nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

4. The managing committee in its meeting held on 20.02.2009, re-casted the panel placing Ruma Thokdar, the 2nd empanelled candidate at the top of the panel on the plea that in the notice issued by it, the candidates having English and History as combination subjects were only asked to offer their candidature for the post. However, the panel, so re-casted was sent to the District Project Officer seeking his approval thereof. After coming to learn about the fact of re-casting the panel, the petitioner by making representations to the competent authority prayed for her engagement in the post but despite receipt of such representations, the respondents maintained deceptive silence which prompted the petitioner to approach this court with a writ petition being W.P. No. 16735(W) of 2009, which was disposed of by an order dated 13.09.2011 whereby the managing committee was directed to prepare a fresh panel as per the merit list prepared by the concerned Coordinator and send the same before the District Project Officer who upon receipt of the panel was directed to accord his approval thereto. The operative part of the order 13.09.2011 is reproduced as hereunder:

“.......The District Project Officer on receipt of the same will grant approval. The Managing Committee is directed to complete the process within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order by a letter to be issued by the learned Advocate on record for the petitioner and the District Project Officer is to grant approval within a period of fortnight from the date of submission of such panel.”

5. The order dated 13.09.2011 was carried in an appeal registered as MAT 813 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 20.09.2013 whereby the afore-mentioned operative part of the order dated 13.09.2011 was s